The only way one can find TNG not to be the best trek series is if
- Thread starter tobindax
- Start date
Over-stating a little bit. I like some episodes. I believe Trials and Tribble Ations was my favourite.
I don't know why, but I think that problem was in the characters, they were not interesting. I watched first few seasons, and I didn't really care about them. (Similar to Enterprise) That's why I was not interested in stories about them later. I almost stopped watching it. I don't think it's bad, just didn't like it myself.
But I'm planning to try watch it again soon.
And I didn't really like war and the darker tone, after lighter TOS and TNG, which were much closer to utopia.
And yeah, I was kidding about Galactica. It is definitely a sci-fi, but I think it has much more drama than other sci-fi shows.
Maybe it depends on whether you like drama in sci-fi series or not, and I obviously don't. I like more sci-fi stories, interesting stories with mysteries and a little less drama.
Sucked is a hard word. I agree that season 1 was bad.
But season 2 had some really good episodes like Q Who, Measure of a Man, Elementary, Dear Data, Contagion, Peak Performance, some of them were average, and some sucked. And it didn't have stupid, illogical scripts, like some episodes in first season.
I don't really agree. And then TNG would never existed, which would be such a shame.
It's seems to me that your're saying that TNG had big ratings only bacause of TOS, and I don't agree. Because the ratings grew when TNG was getting better, and they were weaker in first 2 seasons.
Having less competition hepled, but TNG opened the door for more sci-fi shows, and it deserves a credit for that.
Neither do I.
Last edited:
-- RR
I am an unabashed TNG fan. So threads like this always interest me, esp. reading the comments of those who get all exercised about TNG's flaws. IMHO, the first two seasons were at the very least, dreadfully uneven. I would even go so far to say that they have too much in common with the widely unpopular third season of TOS.
TNG didn't hit its stride really till season three. This isn't to say I didn't enjoy several eps from its first two seasons. The Big Goodbye and Heart of Glory (S1) and The Measure of a Man and Q Who (S2) are among my favorite of the whole series.
But to each his own! I even find good things to say and enjoy about VOY and ENT, the two series I felt were the weakest of all.
Red Ranger
TNG didn't hit its stride really till season three. This isn't to say I didn't enjoy several eps from its first two seasons. The Big Goodbye and Heart of Glory (S1) and The Measure of a Man and Q Who (S2) are among my favorite of the whole series.
But to each his own! I even find good things to say and enjoy about VOY and ENT, the two series I felt were the weakest of all.
Red Ranger
Uhm... no, I know plenty of people who think of TNG first. While there may be just as many, or more, people who think of TOS first, that doesn't go for everyone.
If that had really been the case, TNG wouldn't have last seven seasons, it would've gone the same way Enterprise did. And let's face it, when you're talking about "filling the void", DS9 & VOY fit in that cubicle a lot better than TNG did, since they were specifically created to fill the void TNG was going to leave when it ended. This wasn't the case with TNG, since TOS ended, oh, some twenty years prior?
TNG did have Hugh
But seriously, this is calculated speculation at best, whistful thinking at worst. There is no way you can state such speculation as fact. In fact, you can probably find more grounds for stating the opposite, since many series and movies have proven that replacing actors while keeping the same characters is more often than not harmful for ratings.
I think the new movie is going to get away with it, since there's such a discrepency between the last TOS movie (both in real and in fictional time) and this one.
Of course it's a personal thing, it's egoistical to believe otherwise.
Agreed, however, things get tricky when you try to pass opinion off as fact.
At least TNG had movies. I mean really, regardless what you think of the show (and truth to be told, I wish they had never made the movies), it made enough money with Genesis to make a second movie. And First Contact brought in enough cash to make a third. Insurrection brought in less, but still enough to justify the bile of Picard/Data love that was Nemesis. If the movies really sucked as much as you're stating, they never would've made four. Regardless of fanbase, money talks.
That's yet to be seen. While I don't really doubt the new movie is going to be a hit, the fate of any sequels at this point is hard to speculate about.
TNG was created twenty years after TOS, while some people might have turned in out of curiousity, its naive to think that the only people who watched TNG were people who'd watched TOS. Many were new to the whole Trek thing. And let's face it, DS9, VOY and ENT all operated within the same frame, only the bells and whistles got a new color. And who's to say TNG doesn't have a lasting appeal to cross the threshold of legendary popular culture. Last time I checked, TNG is a well known show even fourteen years after it ended. Drop the name Picard and I bet you most people will know who/what you're referring too. Sisko, on the other hand, not so much. And make no mistake, DS9 was trying to appeal to the general public as much as TNG did, since the general public brings in the money. Don't underestimate the power of money.
I very much agree with the first half of this paragraph. I would've loved for TNG to take the stories a step further and dive into politics and religion within the Federation, unfortunately, that's a step too far for the general public. And while DS9 dipped its toes in the water and I very much appreciate it for that, it hardly took an indepth look either, sadly
Again, so say you.
Personally, while I enjoy DS9, I never got into it, never watched VOY or ENT. I liked TNG because it was optimistic about humans' ability to stop being petty creatures. I liked the exploration, the harmony. My gripe with the show is that humans always came off at superior. I rewatched "Tin Man" last night and it struck me how obvious it is at times that the show catered more to Data and Picard at the expense of other characters. I mean, when Picard takes the advice of an android over that of an empathic psychologist concersing mental matters, something doesn't quite jive. Those are two flaws of many, nonetheless, I still enjoy TNG for what it is.
DS9 was too gritty for my tastes, though I generally like gritty. Since it's set in the future however, I was looking for a little more optimism, some faith in our own evolution, this is what TNG and TOS showed, or so I think.
All stories are the same. Really, all books, movies, plays and what not, tell the same stories, TNG, DS9 and TOS are no exceptions. Every series when it runs long enough becomes repetitive. TNG really suffered from this in the later seasons, but is hardly the only show to be effected. For me, I was invested enough in the characters to keep watching. Whereas when I felt a similar repetition striking DS9 I simply switched off and moved on. To each their own
Again, speculation at best. Any show gets the ratings it gets because of those factors. TNG may not have much competition, but there can be a downside to that - particularly a lack of competition can lead to lazy writing as later seasons showcased. That said, there is no set group of people who will by definition watch a show just because it's science fiction. If TNG had been utter crap, no one would've watched it, regardless of it's sci-fi monopoly.
Why state your personal beliefs as universal facts? There are probably people out there who find DS9 always boring, that hardly makes them close-minded. It merely makes their tastes different than yours.
The way I see it, this pissing contest between fans of different Trek shows (and let's face it, different shows in general), is motivated by nothing but our desire to always be right. With opinions however, you can't be right. You might enjoy a show for reasons A and B, while the next person loathes that same show for reasons A and B. Personally I like that. Life would be dull if all opinions were the same.
I find it hard to stomach when people forget that not everyone thinks like them and when they imply others are narrow-minded or stupid for not thinking the same and it keeps amazing me how much energy people put in promoting their favourite TV show.
Hah hah that must be some good ganga you're smokin' there dude:
I judge a Trek show by whether I would like to live there if given the chance. TNG is the only place I've love to be in.
Why does Sci-Fi all of a sudden have to have all this drama incorporated into it? Was TNG trying to be 24? I don't think so. There could have been a little bit more drama in the sense that the crew had to butt heads a little on important issues (like the Prime Directive), I agree with you this far. But to have Sisko/Kira like fits of anger for no reason other than the fact that the characters are assholes, then give me bland and dramaless anyday of the week.
I judge a Trek show by whether I would like to live there if given the chance. TNG is the only place I've love to be in.
I think the limited budget hurt them in this area, they had to do a lot of tame stories simply because the budget wasn't there to do high packed action sequences.
DS9 "forged" territory by becoming just another derivative drama that could have been anywhere, with severe overacting and severe self importance. The soapish angle was the nail in the coffin for that show.
So because the Captain didn't stick his dick into every alien babe he's not "cool", yeah, ok, and in the series he did have several romances, which BTW were far more realistic than Kirk's "showing the alien babe of the week what 'love' was".
Trek humor is HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE!! Man, you being a DS9nite should know this from watching those horrid Ferengi episodes!!! The only character who was even remotely funny in any of the series was Data, and he was funny in a natural and not forced way.
This might be the ONLY thing I somewhat agree with, and the characters did grow somewhat, but not tremendous amounts.
TRANSLATION: Didn't scream and yell and get on someone else's throat every 2 minutes.
It's hard to top the big 3 in TOS, and that's simply because Leonard Nemoy played the quintessential Vulcan, and McCoy was a great foil to him. Kirk kind of just sat in the middle of their little spats and took a jab here and there at either one of them. DS9 only felt like an ensemble later on in the series, and obviously the war is going to do that, push you closer to those you trust. TNG had great ensemble though, I would say about the same as DS9, they just didn't get that many chances to show it.
Why is this important?
For drama yes, for Sci-Fi, not so sure. Babylon 5 did quite well, but had some very cliched stuff going on, like all the "shadow doomsaying" and practically any scene with telepaths. The other shows built on totally different premises. nuBSG I wouldn't even call Sci-Fi, it's full on Drama with a few sprinkled Sci-Fi elements in it.
What do the movies have to do with the Series?? Were any of the TOS movies even remotely close to the Series? I would say only TMP was, and it's not exactly on everyone's favorite lists now is it?
Again, what do the movies have to do with the Series??
If you like the science and exploration angle, plus the idea that we can grow out of our infancy, then you would find it very interesting. Just because YOU are not interested in those things doesn't mean it wasn't interesting.
That's not TNG's fault. Every decade has gone thru phases. The 60's has it's own "cowboy style". The 70's that "flower power style". The 80's had the "new age style", the 90's had that "contemporary complacency" style, and of course, now in this decade it's the "realistic gritty drama" style. So just because TNG wasn't "gritty and realistic" doesn't mean it was bad quality, it was simply following it's pattern for the decade.
I still rather watch TNG than X-Files, or Buffy, or Angel, or even nuBSG. I like those shows, but they are not as good as TNG for what I like. Stargate maybe comes close, but then again Stargate pretty much stole everything from TOS and TNG and flashed it a lot more.
Ah, no. TOS only feels like it's own style because it stands out so much from what can be done today. Go and watch the original Battlestar, or even Lost in Space, and you'll find the same style that now it's so radically different, it feels "classic". TNG is not at that point yet.
Ah, yeah right. The whole point of the ship is that it's an exploration vessel. It's not supposed to be dinghy and cramped. It's supposed to be comfortable and spacious to live in. Are you one of those people that hate the "AGT upgraded Enterprise D" when that upgrade gave you what you wanted, a fanboy warship.
Agreed.
Interesting. Out of the gritty DS9, the Federation, Romulans and Klingons were allied with a common cause. It would be the TNG that would revert the Romulans to be cold war aliens once again and apparently a new TOS movie.
A young Ferengi saw the Federation and in particular Captain Sisko as a role model and ultimately joins Starfleet. Watching TNG would anybody have seen that coming? Or on Voyager where Harry Kim was "warned" about the Ferengi at school.
Bajor after half a century of occupation would later form a peace treaty with it's former oppressors and a former Bajoran terrorist would one day help Cardassia reclaim its independence.
For all that is said against DS9 it has its moments of hope and unity.
Last edited:
All good points and I actually agree with them. I guess I just get caught on TNG's of the argument about harmony between main casts. While many enjoy DS9 because its main characters had more conflict amongst each other, that is exactly why I enjoy it less. Which is surprising, because in my personal life I need conflict in relationships
Another thing about the inter-character drama is, if it was done all the time it would be criticized as contrived, and we'd all roll our eyes at that instead, where every series has the same formulaic predictable friction with the characters. Where's all the friction in TOS, just the McCoy/Spock banter? That's fun, signature bickering from TOS but it's not great dramatic friction. Truth is in TOS they pretty much all got along like in TNG.
The TNG characters were written at their inception to be reasonably compatible, so they could get on with their alien of the week stuff. Do we want Star Trek or soap operas?
Personally I find the soapy TNG episodes the least palatable, with a few exceptions. I like most of the Lwaxana episodes.
The TNG characters were written at their inception to be reasonably compatible, so they could get on with their alien of the week stuff. Do we want Star Trek or soap operas?
Personally I find the soapy TNG episodes the least palatable, with a few exceptions. I like most of the Lwaxana episodes.
The current zeitgeist with over-indulgent "dark" series, sci-fi or otherwise simply does not mean they are superior for doing it. Battlestar Galactica continually depresses me with how stupid both humanity and the Cylons have become as the series grinds on (and also I guess by default, badly written), neither would last 3 days in the ST universe. Even with a less dramatically rich resource to draw from, STNG managed to convey a much higher sense of intellectualism and also entertainment value with a totally different yet JUST a valid point of view. One where humanity has to overcome, yet can still achieve to improve itself. That is why record numbers of people watched it while BSG gets about 900,000 viewers an episode.
RAMA
I don't mind nuBSG because I already know what to expect. What do I expect? Well every single episode seems to go something like this:
1. 6 seduces Baltar and tells him of their great god.
2. Starbuck throws a hissy fit over something, anything. Later feels sorry but doesn't apologize
3. Apollo goes against his dad, oh wait! now he doesn't!
4. Tigh says "frakking" 30-40 times per episode again.
5. Who in the crew will be the next Cylon? Adama? Tigh? Apollo? Starbuck?
It's a pretty predictable series to be honest. I still enjoy watching it, but it couldn't even kneel to TNG, let alone stand with it lol
Rhaenys Quote--
Over-stating a little bit. I like some episodes.... But I'm planning to try watch it again soon.... And I didn't really like war and the darker tone, after lighter TOS and TNG, which were much closer to utopia.
See, I'm different. I like my characters with some believability. Some darkness and characteristic I can relate to, because I too have flaws, make mistakes and am imperfect. This is why I found it hard to relate to TNG characters and enjoy TOS and DS9 characters more.
I'm glad you will give DS9 another try. You are going to discover some incredible stories!
Rhaenys Quote--
...Sucked is a hard word. I agree that season 1 was bad.... But season 2 had some really good episodes like Q Who, Measure of a Man, Elementary, Dear Data, Contagion, Peak Performance, some of them were average, and some sucked. And it didn't have stupid, illogical scripts, like some episodes in first season.
Yes. I would agree "sucked" is too strong a word for season 7, but not season 1 and 2. Yes, there were a few good episodes--many that you mentioned--but producing consistently good episodes the whole year, makes for a good television season, at least in my book.
Rhaenys Quote--
If Paramount would have retired TOS characters at the movies and given us new actors playing TOS characters on TV, the ratings would have been even greater as a TREK TV series than TNG! TREK would have been hugh!!! Then, they could have brought that TV series to the movies. TREK would be in better shape than it is right now.
I don't really agree. And then TNG would never existed, which would be such a shame. It's seems to me that your're saying that TNG had big ratings only bacause of TOS, and I don't agree. Because the ratings grew when TNG was getting better, and they were weaker in first 2 seasons. Having less competition hepled, but TNG opened the door for more sci-fi shows, and it deserves a credit for that.
And we probably wouldn't have had DS9 either, but, I can't help to speculate how much more interesting and successful, and in better shape the TREK franchise would be if it would have stayed with it's A-Team. James Bond didn't give us a 009 movie series when it was time to renew itself. Just think it would have been better to stick with TREK's best characters and put them on a star ship in a new TV series. Bringing back a franchises' characters with new actors is the way all great franchises go, and should go. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty are icons and renewing them is the way the franchise should have gone. Glad Paramount has put the franchise back on track. A TREK movie featuring those great characters is so mouth-watering. Just hope the damage done to the franchise by VOYAGER, ENTERPRISE and TNG movie series is reversible.
Over-stating a little bit. I like some episodes.... But I'm planning to try watch it again soon.... And I didn't really like war and the darker tone, after lighter TOS and TNG, which were much closer to utopia.
See, I'm different. I like my characters with some believability. Some darkness and characteristic I can relate to, because I too have flaws, make mistakes and am imperfect. This is why I found it hard to relate to TNG characters and enjoy TOS and DS9 characters more.
I'm glad you will give DS9 another try. You are going to discover some incredible stories!
Rhaenys Quote--
...Sucked is a hard word. I agree that season 1 was bad.... But season 2 had some really good episodes like Q Who, Measure of a Man, Elementary, Dear Data, Contagion, Peak Performance, some of them were average, and some sucked. And it didn't have stupid, illogical scripts, like some episodes in first season.
Yes. I would agree "sucked" is too strong a word for season 7, but not season 1 and 2. Yes, there were a few good episodes--many that you mentioned--but producing consistently good episodes the whole year, makes for a good television season, at least in my book.
Rhaenys Quote--
If Paramount would have retired TOS characters at the movies and given us new actors playing TOS characters on TV, the ratings would have been even greater as a TREK TV series than TNG! TREK would have been hugh!!! Then, they could have brought that TV series to the movies. TREK would be in better shape than it is right now.
I don't really agree. And then TNG would never existed, which would be such a shame. It's seems to me that your're saying that TNG had big ratings only bacause of TOS, and I don't agree. Because the ratings grew when TNG was getting better, and they were weaker in first 2 seasons. Having less competition hepled, but TNG opened the door for more sci-fi shows, and it deserves a credit for that.
And we probably wouldn't have had DS9 either, but, I can't help to speculate how much more interesting and successful, and in better shape the TREK franchise would be if it would have stayed with it's A-Team. James Bond didn't give us a 009 movie series when it was time to renew itself. Just think it would have been better to stick with TREK's best characters and put them on a star ship in a new TV series. Bringing back a franchises' characters with new actors is the way all great franchises go, and should go. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty are icons and renewing them is the way the franchise should have gone. Glad Paramount has put the franchise back on track. A TREK movie featuring those great characters is so mouth-watering. Just hope the damage done to the franchise by VOYAGER, ENTERPRISE and TNG movie series is reversible.
Quote:
It's a bad thing because it made TNG a weaker drama series.
DWF wrote--
It was nominated for a Best Drama Emmy in it's final year so I don't think everybody could agree with you there.
Probably done to quill a lot of criticism from the media that TNG had never been nominated. They were being political, as some award shows are, and essentially threw TNG a bone, cause the seventh season was pretty weak. That's one of the many reasons I don't like award shows or use them to judge quality--especially the Oscars, Emmy's and Grammy's. Lots of great art gets ignored. THE WIRE is just a magnificent TV series and you would think it has the plaque or something the way it gets treated at Emmy time.
Quote:
Deja Q was too hammy an episode for me, but was amusing.
DWF wrote--
It was Q-pid not Deja Q and Deja Q wasn't hammy at all plus I thought Hollow Pursuits was funnier than Q-Pid at any rate.
If that's the one about Robin Hood, then I stand corrected. That was hammy. I agree with you; I thought Hollow Pursuits was amusing.
It's a bad thing because it made TNG a weaker drama series.
DWF wrote--
It was nominated for a Best Drama Emmy in it's final year so I don't think everybody could agree with you there.
Probably done to quill a lot of criticism from the media that TNG had never been nominated. They were being political, as some award shows are, and essentially threw TNG a bone, cause the seventh season was pretty weak. That's one of the many reasons I don't like award shows or use them to judge quality--especially the Oscars, Emmy's and Grammy's. Lots of great art gets ignored. THE WIRE is just a magnificent TV series and you would think it has the plaque or something the way it gets treated at Emmy time.
Quote:
Deja Q was too hammy an episode for me, but was amusing.
DWF wrote--
It was Q-pid not Deja Q and Deja Q wasn't hammy at all plus I thought Hollow Pursuits was funnier than Q-Pid at any rate.
If that's the one about Robin Hood, then I stand corrected. That was hammy. I agree with you; I thought Hollow Pursuits was amusing.
Quote:
Different, but not significantly different. TOS was and is the best of the ship-based series. It and it's characters just define what TREK is all about. It is more significant in cultural terms. TNG just copied it, but never suplanted it. It appeared it might for a while (to some) --thanks to TNG high rating in the 80s, but as the dust settled, when people think of STAR TREK, it's TOS that comes to mind first.
Lilith wrote--
Uhm... no, I know plenty of people who think of TNG first. While there may be just as many, or more, people who think of TOS first, that doesn't go for everyone.
_____________________
Didn't say it did go for everyone. I feel when people speak of STAR TREK, the vast number think of TOS first.
Quote:
If Paramount would have retired TOS characters at the movies and given us new actors playing TOS characters on TV, the ratings would have been even greater as a TREK TV series than TNG! TREK would have been hugh!!! Then, they could have brought that TV series to the movies. TREK would be in better shape than it is right now.
Lilith wrote--
TNG did have Hugh
_____________________
Didn't say TNG ratings weren't hugh. I speculated that TREK ratings could have been even greater with TOS characters who were icons, even at that point in time.
Lilith wrote--
But seriously, this is calculated speculation at best, whistful thinking at worst. There is no way you can state such speculation as fact. In fact, you can probably find more grounds for stating the opposite, since many series and movies have proven that replacing actors while keeping the same characters is more often than not harmful for ratings.... I think the new movie is going to get away with it, since there's such a discrepency between the last TOS movie (both in real and in fictional time) and this one.
_____________________
When did I say it was fact? How can I present speculation as fact? You are reading things into my writing that are not there. Like you I am offering my views.
I'm not sure the new movie will be a hit. I certainly hope so. The damage done to the franchise by TNG movies, VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE may be too great. Maybe TREK is out of step with the times and people are tired of it.
Quote:
Stewart was wonderful in the role and did the best he could, but the character was just one-note to me. Though Sisko was played by an inferior actor, he was FAR more interesting as a character. Perhaps, it's a personal thing.
Lilith wrote--
Of course it's a personal thing, it's egoistical to believe otherwise.
_____________________
Why is being conciliatory and stating something as a personal thing being egotistical? Now you are getting nasty. Why are you so upset? It was just a TV show you know.
Quote:
It would be silly to argue opinion as to what is the best. I simply state my opinion that all the shows I mentioned are better.
Lilith wrote--
Agreed, however, things get tricky when you try to pass opinion off as fact.
_____________________
Once again, when did I say these were facts? You are reading things into my writing that are not there. Like you, and everyone on this post, I am offering my views. Just because I write with confidence about my views, doesn't mean I am attempting to present them as fact. Everyone on this site who voices their views, should write with that same authority.
Quote:
TNG failed as a movie series. If NEMESIS was TNG only failure, why wouldn't Paramount ignore it and continue making more TNG movies? Because they could see it wasn't working. Only super-TNG fans couldn't see it and still don't. Only one artistic-commercial success out of four. That's all. That's terrible.
Lilith wrote--
At least TNG had movies. I mean really, regardless what you think of the show (and truth to be told, I wish they had never made the movies), it made enough money with Genesis to make a second movie. And First Contact brought in enough cash to make a third. Insurrection brought in less, but still enough to justify the bile of Picard/Data love that was Nemesis. If the movies really sucked as much as you're stating, they never would've made four. Regardless of fanbase, money talks.
_____________________
I'm glad they had movies, but sad the movies were flat, and for the most part, trite. With the exception of FIRST CONTACT, they just sucked. Money may talk, but a bad movie is a bad movie, regardless of how much money it makes. The two followup PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN movies made almost 900 million, each, worldwide. I thought they sucked too. Just saw the new INDIANA JONES movie. It is making a killing at the box office. Thought it sucked too.
Quote:
When it was bad it didn't work. When the TOS movies were bad, they still clicked, if only from the direction of those great characters and the actors who played them. The presence and characters of TNG just didn't have the magic, legendary and universal appeal of TOS. Paramount made the right decision by returning the TREK movie series to it's best possibilities: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov.
Lilith wrote--
That's yet to be seen. While I don't really doubt the new movie is going to be a hit, the fate of any sequels at this point is hard to speculate about.
_____________________
I think it's the right decision even if the movie fails. What else can Paramount do? If they are going to make TREK movies, go with your best chance of commercial / artistic success and that's just not TNG (which recently failed as a movie series), DS9 (which I think could work as a movie series, but is too much a gamble), VOYAGER, ENTERPRISE or a TREK movie with new, never-seen-before TREK characters.
Quote:
TNG, building off the success, popularity, foundation and frame that TOS created and laid down, made it possible for DS9 to exist and I am grateful for that. TNG was a good show, no doubt about it. It just didn't have that lasting appeal to cross the threshold of legendary popular culture. TOS did. DS9 didn't either. It wasn't trying to.
Lilith wrote--
TNG was created twenty years after TOS, while some people might have turned in out of curiousity, its naive to think that the only people who watched TNG were people who'd watched TOS. Many were new to the whole Trek thing. And let's face it, DS9, VOY and ENT all operated within the same frame, only the bells and whistles got a new color. And who's to say TNG doesn't have a lasting appeal to cross the threshold of legendary popular culture. Last time I checked, TNG is a well known show even fourteen years after it ended. Drop the name Picard and I bet you most people will know who/what you're referring too. Sisko, on the other hand, not so much. And make no mistake, DS9 was trying to appeal to the general public as much as TNG did, since the general public brings in the money. Don't underestimate the power of money.
_____________________
How is stating TNG built off the success, popularity and frame of TOS--which is true--implying only people who watched TNG, watched TOS? Don't see your logic here. I certainly didn't say this.
Yes, many people who tuned in were new to TREK. I'm thankful for TNG for copying major TOS elements--with slight differences--because it helped a new audience discover an updated version of TREK--meaning TOS, minus, of course those great TREK characters, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, etc.
VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE copied TNG, which of course, copied TOS. The differences of DS9 were a lot more than color, especially after season 2.
Sure, TNG is popular, but it simply isn't anywhere near as iconic as TOS. Perhaps it will be in the future, but I can't speak to the future. Thanks to the new movie, it's time for TOS to shine once again; time for the A-team to come to bat and hopefully save the franchise.
Yes, you are right. DS9 was trying to appeal to the general public, but on it's own terms. What I meant was, DS9 was willing to go out on a limb and be different, not playing it safe and not just ripping-off TOS by plopping seven characters on a star ship and sending them off to explore, like all the other TREK series did. It was attempting not to take the easy route, say, like Hollywood sequels, which, unless planed series, are looking first to repeat the formula to make easy money. It wanted to put a different spin on TREK first and by that, create a successful show to make money. I can respect that.
Quote:
During this period, only DS9 offered quality TREK. I liked DS9 because it got away from star ships (in part) and exploring. It pointed the way, the direction, TREK should have gone.
Lilith wrote--
Again, so say you.
Personally, while I enjoy DS9, I never got into it, never watched VOY or ENT. I liked TNG because it was optimistic about humans' ability to stop being petty creatures. I liked the exploration, the harmony. My gripe with the show is that humans always came off at superior. I rewatched "Tin Man" last night and it struck me how obvious it is at times that the show catered more to Data and Picard at the expense of other characters. I mean, when Picard takes the advice of an android over that of an empathic psychologist concersing mental matters, something doesn't quite jive. Those are two flaws of many, nonetheless, I still enjoy TNG for what it is.
DS9 was too gritty for my tastes, though I generally like gritty. Since it's set in the future however, I was looking for a little more optimism, some faith in our own evolution, this is what TNG and TOS showed, or so I think.
_____________________
Is it really necessary to be so confrontational and curt?
I liked TNG too. The thing is, TOS was optimistic as well, but not at the expense of the characters acting the way humans do. Roddenberry just went too far and robbed the show of having stronger dramatic conflict within the weekly cast. Shows that have conflict with their weekly guest stars AND conflict within their weekly cast, simply have a more winning formula, greater opportunity, and greater amounts of winning and exciting drama.
What I think TNG and Roddenberry missed is that it is possible to have utopia, externally: government, institutions, etc.-- you know, what TREK fans call an optimistic future--AND have your characters still grappling with getting along personally together and dealing with and developing their own inner demons. From a worldly point of view, this kind of development process would take a lot longer in my book than what is implied in TNG--both internally (especially), within the individual, and externally, in terms of government and institutions. The TOS still had the characters dealing with this human conundrum, and utopia was part of TOS timeframe. DS9, still had it's characters dealing with this human conundrum, as well, and it existed in the TNG timeframe. In my opinion, this was a misstep in TNG. However, I do respect your differing views.
Quote:
You have a right to your opinion, but "always" boring? If you found DS9 "always" boring, then you are either not being honest, just didn't get it, being unfair, being close mined, or over-stating. Come on. There is no way I can believe it always bored you.
Lilith wrote--
Why state your personal beliefs as universal facts? There are probably people out there who find DS9 always boring, that hardly makes them close-minded. It merely makes their tastes different than yours.
The way I see it, this pissing contest between fans of different Trek shows (and let's face it, different shows in general), is motivated by nothing but our desire to always be right. With opinions however, you can't be right. You might enjoy a show for reasons A and B, while the next person loathes that same show for reasons A and B. Personally I like that. Life would be dull if all opinions were the same.
I find it hard to stomach when people forget that not everyone thinks like them and when they imply others are narrow-minded or stupid for not thinking the same and it keeps amazing me how much energy people put in promoting their favourite TV show.
_____________________
This has been a running theme in your responses, and they have been completely unfounded. I don't know what I said to give you the impression I have been expressing anything else other than opinions. Just as you have. How could I be anymore guilty than you? Is it required for me to state, "This is my opinion..." within every sentence and paragraph?
As for the comment the fan made above, I responded to him because he made an "absolute" statement, not because he doesn't like DS9. I also begin with acknowledging his right to his opinion. Where is the wrong in that? He wrote back and corrected himself, so I wasn't off base.
Actually, it has been your tone that has been aggressive and mean-spirited, not mine.
Different, but not significantly different. TOS was and is the best of the ship-based series. It and it's characters just define what TREK is all about. It is more significant in cultural terms. TNG just copied it, but never suplanted it. It appeared it might for a while (to some) --thanks to TNG high rating in the 80s, but as the dust settled, when people think of STAR TREK, it's TOS that comes to mind first.
Lilith wrote--
Uhm... no, I know plenty of people who think of TNG first. While there may be just as many, or more, people who think of TOS first, that doesn't go for everyone.
_____________________
Didn't say it did go for everyone. I feel when people speak of STAR TREK, the vast number think of TOS first.
Quote:
If Paramount would have retired TOS characters at the movies and given us new actors playing TOS characters on TV, the ratings would have been even greater as a TREK TV series than TNG! TREK would have been hugh!!! Then, they could have brought that TV series to the movies. TREK would be in better shape than it is right now.
Lilith wrote--
TNG did have Hugh
_____________________
Didn't say TNG ratings weren't hugh. I speculated that TREK ratings could have been even greater with TOS characters who were icons, even at that point in time.
Lilith wrote--
But seriously, this is calculated speculation at best, whistful thinking at worst. There is no way you can state such speculation as fact. In fact, you can probably find more grounds for stating the opposite, since many series and movies have proven that replacing actors while keeping the same characters is more often than not harmful for ratings.... I think the new movie is going to get away with it, since there's such a discrepency between the last TOS movie (both in real and in fictional time) and this one.
_____________________
When did I say it was fact? How can I present speculation as fact? You are reading things into my writing that are not there. Like you I am offering my views.
I'm not sure the new movie will be a hit. I certainly hope so. The damage done to the franchise by TNG movies, VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE may be too great. Maybe TREK is out of step with the times and people are tired of it.
Quote:
Stewart was wonderful in the role and did the best he could, but the character was just one-note to me. Though Sisko was played by an inferior actor, he was FAR more interesting as a character. Perhaps, it's a personal thing.
Lilith wrote--
Of course it's a personal thing, it's egoistical to believe otherwise.
_____________________
Why is being conciliatory and stating something as a personal thing being egotistical? Now you are getting nasty. Why are you so upset? It was just a TV show you know.
Quote:
It would be silly to argue opinion as to what is the best. I simply state my opinion that all the shows I mentioned are better.
Lilith wrote--
Agreed, however, things get tricky when you try to pass opinion off as fact.
_____________________
Once again, when did I say these were facts? You are reading things into my writing that are not there. Like you, and everyone on this post, I am offering my views. Just because I write with confidence about my views, doesn't mean I am attempting to present them as fact. Everyone on this site who voices their views, should write with that same authority.
Quote:
TNG failed as a movie series. If NEMESIS was TNG only failure, why wouldn't Paramount ignore it and continue making more TNG movies? Because they could see it wasn't working. Only super-TNG fans couldn't see it and still don't. Only one artistic-commercial success out of four. That's all. That's terrible.
Lilith wrote--
At least TNG had movies. I mean really, regardless what you think of the show (and truth to be told, I wish they had never made the movies), it made enough money with Genesis to make a second movie. And First Contact brought in enough cash to make a third. Insurrection brought in less, but still enough to justify the bile of Picard/Data love that was Nemesis. If the movies really sucked as much as you're stating, they never would've made four. Regardless of fanbase, money talks.
_____________________
I'm glad they had movies, but sad the movies were flat, and for the most part, trite. With the exception of FIRST CONTACT, they just sucked. Money may talk, but a bad movie is a bad movie, regardless of how much money it makes. The two followup PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN movies made almost 900 million, each, worldwide. I thought they sucked too. Just saw the new INDIANA JONES movie. It is making a killing at the box office. Thought it sucked too.
Quote:
When it was bad it didn't work. When the TOS movies were bad, they still clicked, if only from the direction of those great characters and the actors who played them. The presence and characters of TNG just didn't have the magic, legendary and universal appeal of TOS. Paramount made the right decision by returning the TREK movie series to it's best possibilities: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov.
Lilith wrote--
That's yet to be seen. While I don't really doubt the new movie is going to be a hit, the fate of any sequels at this point is hard to speculate about.
_____________________
I think it's the right decision even if the movie fails. What else can Paramount do? If they are going to make TREK movies, go with your best chance of commercial / artistic success and that's just not TNG (which recently failed as a movie series), DS9 (which I think could work as a movie series, but is too much a gamble), VOYAGER, ENTERPRISE or a TREK movie with new, never-seen-before TREK characters.
Quote:
TNG, building off the success, popularity, foundation and frame that TOS created and laid down, made it possible for DS9 to exist and I am grateful for that. TNG was a good show, no doubt about it. It just didn't have that lasting appeal to cross the threshold of legendary popular culture. TOS did. DS9 didn't either. It wasn't trying to.
Lilith wrote--
TNG was created twenty years after TOS, while some people might have turned in out of curiousity, its naive to think that the only people who watched TNG were people who'd watched TOS. Many were new to the whole Trek thing. And let's face it, DS9, VOY and ENT all operated within the same frame, only the bells and whistles got a new color. And who's to say TNG doesn't have a lasting appeal to cross the threshold of legendary popular culture. Last time I checked, TNG is a well known show even fourteen years after it ended. Drop the name Picard and I bet you most people will know who/what you're referring too. Sisko, on the other hand, not so much. And make no mistake, DS9 was trying to appeal to the general public as much as TNG did, since the general public brings in the money. Don't underestimate the power of money.
_____________________
How is stating TNG built off the success, popularity and frame of TOS--which is true--implying only people who watched TNG, watched TOS? Don't see your logic here. I certainly didn't say this.
Yes, many people who tuned in were new to TREK. I'm thankful for TNG for copying major TOS elements--with slight differences--because it helped a new audience discover an updated version of TREK--meaning TOS, minus, of course those great TREK characters, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, etc.
VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE copied TNG, which of course, copied TOS. The differences of DS9 were a lot more than color, especially after season 2.
Sure, TNG is popular, but it simply isn't anywhere near as iconic as TOS. Perhaps it will be in the future, but I can't speak to the future. Thanks to the new movie, it's time for TOS to shine once again; time for the A-team to come to bat and hopefully save the franchise.
Yes, you are right. DS9 was trying to appeal to the general public, but on it's own terms. What I meant was, DS9 was willing to go out on a limb and be different, not playing it safe and not just ripping-off TOS by plopping seven characters on a star ship and sending them off to explore, like all the other TREK series did. It was attempting not to take the easy route, say, like Hollywood sequels, which, unless planed series, are looking first to repeat the formula to make easy money. It wanted to put a different spin on TREK first and by that, create a successful show to make money. I can respect that.
Quote:
During this period, only DS9 offered quality TREK. I liked DS9 because it got away from star ships (in part) and exploring. It pointed the way, the direction, TREK should have gone.
Lilith wrote--
Again, so say you.
Personally, while I enjoy DS9, I never got into it, never watched VOY or ENT. I liked TNG because it was optimistic about humans' ability to stop being petty creatures. I liked the exploration, the harmony. My gripe with the show is that humans always came off at superior. I rewatched "Tin Man" last night and it struck me how obvious it is at times that the show catered more to Data and Picard at the expense of other characters. I mean, when Picard takes the advice of an android over that of an empathic psychologist concersing mental matters, something doesn't quite jive. Those are two flaws of many, nonetheless, I still enjoy TNG for what it is.
DS9 was too gritty for my tastes, though I generally like gritty. Since it's set in the future however, I was looking for a little more optimism, some faith in our own evolution, this is what TNG and TOS showed, or so I think.
_____________________
Is it really necessary to be so confrontational and curt?
I liked TNG too. The thing is, TOS was optimistic as well, but not at the expense of the characters acting the way humans do. Roddenberry just went too far and robbed the show of having stronger dramatic conflict within the weekly cast. Shows that have conflict with their weekly guest stars AND conflict within their weekly cast, simply have a more winning formula, greater opportunity, and greater amounts of winning and exciting drama.
What I think TNG and Roddenberry missed is that it is possible to have utopia, externally: government, institutions, etc.-- you know, what TREK fans call an optimistic future--AND have your characters still grappling with getting along personally together and dealing with and developing their own inner demons. From a worldly point of view, this kind of development process would take a lot longer in my book than what is implied in TNG--both internally (especially), within the individual, and externally, in terms of government and institutions. The TOS still had the characters dealing with this human conundrum, and utopia was part of TOS timeframe. DS9, still had it's characters dealing with this human conundrum, as well, and it existed in the TNG timeframe. In my opinion, this was a misstep in TNG. However, I do respect your differing views.
Quote:
You have a right to your opinion, but "always" boring? If you found DS9 "always" boring, then you are either not being honest, just didn't get it, being unfair, being close mined, or over-stating. Come on. There is no way I can believe it always bored you.
Lilith wrote--
Why state your personal beliefs as universal facts? There are probably people out there who find DS9 always boring, that hardly makes them close-minded. It merely makes their tastes different than yours.
The way I see it, this pissing contest between fans of different Trek shows (and let's face it, different shows in general), is motivated by nothing but our desire to always be right. With opinions however, you can't be right. You might enjoy a show for reasons A and B, while the next person loathes that same show for reasons A and B. Personally I like that. Life would be dull if all opinions were the same.
I find it hard to stomach when people forget that not everyone thinks like them and when they imply others are narrow-minded or stupid for not thinking the same and it keeps amazing me how much energy people put in promoting their favourite TV show.
_____________________
This has been a running theme in your responses, and they have been completely unfounded. I don't know what I said to give you the impression I have been expressing anything else other than opinions. Just as you have. How could I be anymore guilty than you? Is it required for me to state, "This is my opinion..." within every sentence and paragraph?
As for the comment the fan made above, I responded to him because he made an "absolute" statement, not because he doesn't like DS9. I also begin with acknowledging his right to his opinion. Where is the wrong in that? He wrote back and corrected himself, so I wasn't off base.
Actually, it has been your tone that has been aggressive and mean-spirited, not mine.
You misspelled huge Lilith was just making fun of that.
So bythat you're saying that TNG should've nominated earlier then I guess?
And you miss my point TNG was clearly an Emmy contender in the best drama department so the show wasn't lacking in drama despite the claims that the show was somehow lacking in drama since they took out some of the conflict between Starfleet personal.Great drama has conflict among it principal characters and TNG did not.
GalaxyX wrote--
Hah hah that must be some good ganga you're smokin' there dude:
Why does Sci-Fi all of a sudden have to have all this drama incorporated into it? Was TNG trying to be 24? I don't think so. There could have been a little bit more drama in the sense that the crew had to butt heads a little on important issues (like the Prime Directive), I agree with you this far. But to have Sisko/Kira like fits of anger for no reason other than the fact that the characters are assholes, then give me bland and dramaless anyday of the week. I judge a Trek show by whether I would like to live there if given the chance. TNG is the only place I've love to be in.
_________________________
Sorry, I don't smoke at all... never have.
Don't recall Sisko and Kira just arguing for the sake of arguing. Can you supply the episode where this happened? Kira started off as an angry individual. She was a terrorist... a murderer, from some points of view. She mistrusted, Star Fleet, Sisko, Cardassians, etc., and I can understand that. But, she grew into a better person--a spiritual person, in fact. That's one of the many beauties of her character, and DS9. Now, if the writers had Kira and Sisko screaming at each other for seven years, for no purpose, you would have a point, but they didn't.
I judge a TREK show from many angels, one being to reflect the human condition and be truthful to it. In the area of drama among it's main cast, TNG distorted this to near fantasy proportions. Fantasy and escaping reality in my art isn't my cup of tea.
Quote:
TNG ran 7 years and produced only 4 out of the seven years of quality television (Season 1,2 and 7 sucked!).
I think the limited budget hurt them in this area, they had to do a lot of tame stories simply because the budget wasn't there to do high packed action sequences.
_________________________
Lots of shows with limited budget produce good TV. TOS and Babylon 5 come to mind. I don't except that reason for TNG first two poor seasons. Most TNG fans use the writers strike which occurred at that time as a reason and I think there is validity to that excuse.
Quote:
TNG is a rip-off of TOS (like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE). Only DS9 forged new territory in the TREK franchise.
GalaxyX wrote--
DS9 "forged" territory by becoming just another derivative drama that could have been anywhere, with severe overacting and severe self importance. The soapish angle was the nail in the coffin for that show.
_________________________
Claims of "soap opera" are always thrown out at art when people can't think of warranted criticisms. It's an easy attack. There exist tons of great works of literature from WAR and PEACE and GREAT EXPECTATIONS, to the majority of Shakespeare's plays, to the grand operas by the musical masters, which could be called "soap operas". Are they to be viewed as less than or weak artistic endeavors?
I accept the soap opera criticism when the plots-stories-character elements are excessive, distort truth, reality, plausibility and common sense. This didn't happen in DS9 to the extent you are stating. Though, I liked TNG, I'll take the "soap opera" of BABYLON 5, TOS, BSG, over it's occasional bland and anemic drama any day. Oh, and don't forget TNG's dabbling into "soap opera" with Troi and her mom; Worf and his son; Beverly and her son; Riker and his father; Beverly and Picard's past relationship. Talk about calling the kettle black. DS9 occurred in a stationary milieu, and was, by it's very structure going to "appear" more like soap opera.
I thought the acting and drama of DS9 was very good. The drama, no more derivative, the acting no more overdone than TNG. Actually, the acting in the first two seasons of TNG was the worst seen in any of the TREK series, even VOYAGER.
Quote:
A one-note, dimension-less, sexless character as captain. (Though played by a fine actor!)
GalaxyX wrote--
So because the Captain didn't stick his dick into every alien babe he's not "cool", yeah, ok, and in the series he did have several romances, which BTW were far more realistic than Kirk's "showing the alien babe of the week what 'love' was".
_________________________
Hey, what's wrong with a Kirk getting some ***** from time to time? Kirk wasn't married, you know. Sisko had a girlfriend and actually got married! Picard was thrown a few ladies, true, but it functioned only as pretense. It was random and seemed forced.
Quote:
Could not do humor like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE, and like them, produced no classic comedy episodes in the TREK canon or science fiction in general.
GalaxyX wrote--
Trek humor is HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE!! Man, you being a DS9nite should know this from watching those horrid Ferengi episodes!!! The only character who was even remotely funny in any of the series was Data, and he was funny in a natural and not forced way.
_________________________
TREK humor from TNG, VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE was forced, stiff, and nonexistent. TOS and DS9 produced several great comedy episodes. At worst, TREK humor on these two shows was poor, occasionally a misfire, but not horrible, horrible, horrible.
Data was funny (though, the one note "fish out of water jokes" got old), but the use of his humor, didn't produce classic episodes on par with TOS and DS9--though he had a lot of great lines. Quark, McCoy and Phloxx were funny, too. The problem is, the humor from these three characters was witty and low-key--which was probably missed or not appreciated by a lot of fans. No TREK character was as successful at comedy than Quark. I rate him over Data in this area. An outstanding TREK character and very underrated. DS9 did overdue the Ferengi episodes, (also the Mirror universe stories), but the majority were funny to me.
Quote:
No great dynamic between captain and first officer, unlike many TREK and similar type of story franchises, TV shows, movies, novels, etc.
GalaxyX wrote--
Why is this important?
_________________________
Dynamics between major characters and actors who spend time together on screen are important to any story or plot. There just wasn't a lot that really sparkled coming from Picard and Riker. Just compare them to Kirk and Spock and see what this added to the TOS and it's stories. I thought Sisko and Kira worked better together as well.
Quote:
Viewing the TV series now, 2008, it already looks dated, soft and tame.
GalaxyX wrote--
I still rather watch TNG than X-Files, or Buffy, or Angel, or even nuBSG. I like those shows, but they are not as good as TNG for what I like. Stargate maybe comes close, but then again Stargate pretty much stole everything from TOS and TNG and flashed it a lot more.
_________________________
Wow, Stargate? Would maybe watch TNG over Buffy--definitely over Angel and Stargate, but not The X Files and BSG.
Quote:
Bridge of the ship looks like a hotel lobby and not a bridge on a ship. Dreadful and almost laughable decision. The exterior shape of the ship made it look like a "toy" traveling through space and not a mighty star ship.
GalaxyX wrote--
Ah, yeah right. The whole point of the ship is that it's an exploration vessel. It's not supposed to be dinghy and cramped. It's supposed to be comfortable and spacious to live in. Are you one of those people that hate the "AGT upgraded Enterprise D" when that upgrade gave you what you wanted, a fanboy warship.
_________________________
It made sense to have other areas of the ship look and feel comfortable and spacious for long space travel, but not the bridge. It's too critical an area to feel too relaxed and comfortable in. It's the heart of the operations for the ship and it would be dangerous to make it look and feel that way and give off a "relaxed" kind of vibe. I can't think of any critical area in the human condition where someone would design for that purpose or even entertain doing that. Perhaps you can. Sorry, I don't agree this makes sense.
No. I'm not one of those people. I thought TNG ship needed to be redesigned. As I mentioned above, I thought the ship on TV looked like a toy traveling through space and not a great star ship. The upgraded Enterprise D looked really good, a definite improvement.
GalaxyX wrote--
Hah hah that must be some good ganga you're smokin' there dude:
Why does Sci-Fi all of a sudden have to have all this drama incorporated into it? Was TNG trying to be 24? I don't think so. There could have been a little bit more drama in the sense that the crew had to butt heads a little on important issues (like the Prime Directive), I agree with you this far. But to have Sisko/Kira like fits of anger for no reason other than the fact that the characters are assholes, then give me bland and dramaless anyday of the week. I judge a Trek show by whether I would like to live there if given the chance. TNG is the only place I've love to be in.
_________________________
Sorry, I don't smoke at all... never have.
Don't recall Sisko and Kira just arguing for the sake of arguing. Can you supply the episode where this happened? Kira started off as an angry individual. She was a terrorist... a murderer, from some points of view. She mistrusted, Star Fleet, Sisko, Cardassians, etc., and I can understand that. But, she grew into a better person--a spiritual person, in fact. That's one of the many beauties of her character, and DS9. Now, if the writers had Kira and Sisko screaming at each other for seven years, for no purpose, you would have a point, but they didn't.
I judge a TREK show from many angels, one being to reflect the human condition and be truthful to it. In the area of drama among it's main cast, TNG distorted this to near fantasy proportions. Fantasy and escaping reality in my art isn't my cup of tea.
Quote:
TNG ran 7 years and produced only 4 out of the seven years of quality television (Season 1,2 and 7 sucked!).
I think the limited budget hurt them in this area, they had to do a lot of tame stories simply because the budget wasn't there to do high packed action sequences.
_________________________
Lots of shows with limited budget produce good TV. TOS and Babylon 5 come to mind. I don't except that reason for TNG first two poor seasons. Most TNG fans use the writers strike which occurred at that time as a reason and I think there is validity to that excuse.
Quote:
TNG is a rip-off of TOS (like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE). Only DS9 forged new territory in the TREK franchise.
GalaxyX wrote--
DS9 "forged" territory by becoming just another derivative drama that could have been anywhere, with severe overacting and severe self importance. The soapish angle was the nail in the coffin for that show.
_________________________
Claims of "soap opera" are always thrown out at art when people can't think of warranted criticisms. It's an easy attack. There exist tons of great works of literature from WAR and PEACE and GREAT EXPECTATIONS, to the majority of Shakespeare's plays, to the grand operas by the musical masters, which could be called "soap operas". Are they to be viewed as less than or weak artistic endeavors?
I accept the soap opera criticism when the plots-stories-character elements are excessive, distort truth, reality, plausibility and common sense. This didn't happen in DS9 to the extent you are stating. Though, I liked TNG, I'll take the "soap opera" of BABYLON 5, TOS, BSG, over it's occasional bland and anemic drama any day. Oh, and don't forget TNG's dabbling into "soap opera" with Troi and her mom; Worf and his son; Beverly and her son; Riker and his father; Beverly and Picard's past relationship. Talk about calling the kettle black. DS9 occurred in a stationary milieu, and was, by it's very structure going to "appear" more like soap opera.
I thought the acting and drama of DS9 was very good. The drama, no more derivative, the acting no more overdone than TNG. Actually, the acting in the first two seasons of TNG was the worst seen in any of the TREK series, even VOYAGER.
Quote:
A one-note, dimension-less, sexless character as captain. (Though played by a fine actor!)
GalaxyX wrote--
So because the Captain didn't stick his dick into every alien babe he's not "cool", yeah, ok, and in the series he did have several romances, which BTW were far more realistic than Kirk's "showing the alien babe of the week what 'love' was".
_________________________
Hey, what's wrong with a Kirk getting some ***** from time to time? Kirk wasn't married, you know. Sisko had a girlfriend and actually got married! Picard was thrown a few ladies, true, but it functioned only as pretense. It was random and seemed forced.
Quote:
Could not do humor like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE, and like them, produced no classic comedy episodes in the TREK canon or science fiction in general.
GalaxyX wrote--
Trek humor is HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE!! Man, you being a DS9nite should know this from watching those horrid Ferengi episodes!!! The only character who was even remotely funny in any of the series was Data, and he was funny in a natural and not forced way.
_________________________
TREK humor from TNG, VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE was forced, stiff, and nonexistent. TOS and DS9 produced several great comedy episodes. At worst, TREK humor on these two shows was poor, occasionally a misfire, but not horrible, horrible, horrible.
Data was funny (though, the one note "fish out of water jokes" got old), but the use of his humor, didn't produce classic episodes on par with TOS and DS9--though he had a lot of great lines. Quark, McCoy and Phloxx were funny, too. The problem is, the humor from these three characters was witty and low-key--which was probably missed or not appreciated by a lot of fans. No TREK character was as successful at comedy than Quark. I rate him over Data in this area. An outstanding TREK character and very underrated. DS9 did overdue the Ferengi episodes, (also the Mirror universe stories), but the majority were funny to me.
Quote:
No great dynamic between captain and first officer, unlike many TREK and similar type of story franchises, TV shows, movies, novels, etc.
GalaxyX wrote--
Why is this important?
_________________________
Dynamics between major characters and actors who spend time together on screen are important to any story or plot. There just wasn't a lot that really sparkled coming from Picard and Riker. Just compare them to Kirk and Spock and see what this added to the TOS and it's stories. I thought Sisko and Kira worked better together as well.
Quote:
Viewing the TV series now, 2008, it already looks dated, soft and tame.
GalaxyX wrote--
I still rather watch TNG than X-Files, or Buffy, or Angel, or even nuBSG. I like those shows, but they are not as good as TNG for what I like. Stargate maybe comes close, but then again Stargate pretty much stole everything from TOS and TNG and flashed it a lot more.
_________________________
Wow, Stargate? Would maybe watch TNG over Buffy--definitely over Angel and Stargate, but not The X Files and BSG.
Quote:
Bridge of the ship looks like a hotel lobby and not a bridge on a ship. Dreadful and almost laughable decision. The exterior shape of the ship made it look like a "toy" traveling through space and not a mighty star ship.
GalaxyX wrote--
Ah, yeah right. The whole point of the ship is that it's an exploration vessel. It's not supposed to be dinghy and cramped. It's supposed to be comfortable and spacious to live in. Are you one of those people that hate the "AGT upgraded Enterprise D" when that upgrade gave you what you wanted, a fanboy warship.
_________________________
It made sense to have other areas of the ship look and feel comfortable and spacious for long space travel, but not the bridge. It's too critical an area to feel too relaxed and comfortable in. It's the heart of the operations for the ship and it would be dangerous to make it look and feel that way and give off a "relaxed" kind of vibe. I can't think of any critical area in the human condition where someone would design for that purpose or even entertain doing that. Perhaps you can. Sorry, I don't agree this makes sense.
No. I'm not one of those people. I thought TNG ship needed to be redesigned. As I mentioned above, I thought the ship on TV looked like a toy traveling through space and not a great star ship. The upgraded Enterprise D looked really good, a definite improvement.
Similar threads
