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
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.
But that's not what you said either -which was my point
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.
This was a joke, referring to the character Hugh - a borg Picard & co rescued
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.
By using definites "would, will, is going to" etc, one creates the impression of
knowing what would've happened/is going to happen, when its merely speculation - which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also, sometimes things are painted with a very broad brush. Adding more inter-character conflicts might've made TNG more enjoyable for you, but the way your post comes off is as if you're saying such changes would've made the show more enjoyable for everyone and that's simply not true.
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.
See, this too is something personal. When TNG ended, I wanted to keep on Trekkin', so I switched to DS9. I just didn't like it and stopped watching Trek all together (except for the TNG movies - which I ended up regretting around the time of Insurrection/Nemesis). So, for me & doubtlessly for others as well, DS9 damaged the franschise. However, I fully recognize that this is because of my personal preferences and that there are many people who do enjoy DS9, VOY and ENT. Good for them, I say
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.
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.
My apologies, I certainly wasn't trying to be nasty or anything of the sort, at most a little sarcastic. My reply goes for every opinion, ever made, including my own. A preference for a character, a type of food, the colour red or bright sunny days is always personal. To assume that everyone shares your (general your) opinion, is egoistical in my book - but then, that's my opinion
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.
Here's the thing, I think it's perfectly possible to explain why you like something, without dissing its competition or assuming you know exactly what would've happened if things had gone your way. Why? Because you simply don't know. It's quite possible that if TNG had more conflict amongst its cast it would've been a huger hit. It's also quite possible that it would've had less viewers. You simply don't know. You do know whether you would've enjoyed or disliked such changes, but you can't project that on society at large, especially not on a society now 20 years ago.
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.
But obviously there were also a great deal of people who did enjoy it, otherwise those movies would never have made so much money. Personally I loved the third Pirates of the Carribean movie best of all.
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.
I agree and it'll be very interesting to see what this new movie will do to the franchise. Though part of me still thinks they should've kept Trek in the vault a little longer, I think that might've benefited the movie in the long run too. I do recognize that part of TNG's success was the long wait between TOS and the new show.
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.
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.
My bad, I misinterpreted. Still the way you phrased that particular argument, it came across as if you blamed TNG for doing so, which is a bit out there, considering TNG was meant to be a follow up, just like DS9 was. And while TNG was created with the success, popularity and frame of TOS in mind, it found its own niche and attracked many viewers who'd never seen TOS.
VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE copied TNG, which of course, copied TOS. The differences of DS9 were a lot more than color, especially after season 2.
I hear this a lot - not even particularly for Trek - but why was DS9 so different? To me, the only obvious difference was that they were on a spacestation which allowed for more arc-based episodes. However, there were still aliens-of-the-week, holodeck (sorry, -suite) malfunctions, an "enhanced" humanoid (Bashir) along the lines of Data/Spock and later in the series many of the episodes centered around travelling, either by shuttle or the Defiant. What DS9 did better than TNG was romantic relationships. In TNG those rarely lasted more than a single episode, whereas DS9 showed us actual relationships developing and ending, something TNG could've used a little more off, imho.
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.
This is pretty interesting. Let's take two hypotheticals:
1) TOS ended 40 years ago now, TNG 14 years ago. We can't look into the future as you rightly stated, but who knows what TNG's status is going to be like 26 years from now. Personally I doubt it'll be on the same level as TOS is now - but nonetheless, it'd be interesting to see.
2) Here's a question, not meant to put anything down - but I wonder what would've happened to TOS if TNG or DS9 or VOY or ENT never came into existence. What if the original run of the series and the 6 movies where the whole of the Trek franchise? See, I think it's perfectly possible that the mere continuation of the franchise has added to TOS' fame and I'm not using this question as an argument for or against, merely as a sidetrack.
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.
I adressed this a few paragraph's ago, but for funsies: the way I see it, DS9 went through the same exploration TOS and TNG did, only they operated from a base fixed in place. It's different, yes, but only on the surface.
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.
Ah, but the formula still stands. If you consider the formula to be merely ship&exploring then DS9 didn't really deviate from that, especially not once the wormhole and the Defiant came about. How many episodes take place off base? Probably (roughly) just as many as TNG episodes took place off ship.
Hmm... might actually be interesting to figure out
I do respect DS9 for trying to be different and was intregued by the premise at the time, because I thought it would allow for more ongoing storylines.
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.
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 wasn't being confrontational or curt, merely stating my opinion on the whole thing. "Again, so say you" wasn't meant as a diss, just a statement.
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.
While I may agree with you on the generality of the statement, it doesn't quite hold up. Perhaps TNG could've been better, or maybe more drama would've hurt the show. In the first season there was clear tension between Data and Riker, Riker and Picard, Worf and Troi. In the second, Pulaski caused a lot of friction too. The funny thing is that even today when these characters/relationships are discussed, many people say they disliked, even hated, Pulaski because of the conflicts she caused. In a recent discussion about Riker, people brought up his initial relationship with Data and how they wished they'd gotten along right from the start.
These types of discussions seem to imply that prolonged conflict among the main cast simply didn't work for TNG.
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.
I was thinking about this, is it necessary for people to have conflicts with their friends/colleagues to be human? I've known my best friends for ten years -and we've never, ever fought. Discussions and disagreements? Definitely, but we never took it personal. Maybe that's why I can relate to TNG. Worf and Troi had radically opposed views, they knew this about each other and they could oppose each other (The Child is a good example), without it hurting their working relationship or their friendship.
Picard and Crusher went head to head on several occasions, mostly in ethical discussions, but that never altered their relationship. There was plenty of conflict in TNG, in episodes as Measure of a Man, Pen Pals, Unnatural Selection, I, Borg, Encounter at Farpoint and All Good Things and many many more, but the conflicts never played out on a personal level. The crew was able to recognize their differences, discuss them - vehemently at times - without it affecting their friendships.
I have very heated discussions with my friends and since we have different views on religion, politics and the likes, they can get "critical", but it doesn't affect out friendship - we argue arguments, not personal preferences.
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.
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.
Well, to take a recent example: "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."
Statements like that come across to me as if everyone has to think the same way you do. You're the only one here (except for the opening post - which was ridiculous imho) who accused someone of being unfair or close minded or any such thing.
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?
Nope, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between "more conflict between characters would have made TNG a better show for everyone" and "more conflict between characters could have made TNG a better show" and yes, I realize you never used those exact sentences.
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.
Ah, yup, but, you do the exact same thing - use absolutes when there is no basis to do so.
Actually, it has been your tone that has been aggressive and mean-spirited, not mine.
I don't think that's the case- for either of us, but I apologize you feel it that way. If you read my posts, I hope you see that there's no personal note to it - in the sense that my arguments are an reaction to your arguments, not to your feelings about DS9 or TNG, since I feel no need to argue those. I'm merely trying to show that for every argument there's an equal and opposite argument. As I said earlier, it's perfectly possible to argue your liking of something, without dissing something else.
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.
