The only way one can find TNG not to be the best trek series is if

[Superman]

The only way one can find TNG not to be the best trek series is if...

Take into account:

• Great drama has conflict among it principal characters and TNG did not.

• TNG ran 7 years and produced only 4 out of the seven years of quality television (Season 1,2 and 7 sucked!).

• TNG is a rip-off of TOS (like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE). Only DS9 forged new territory in the TREK franchise.

• A one-note, dimension-less, sexless character as captain. (Though played by a fine actor!)

• 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.

• Had flat, white-bread characters that didn't grow.

• Had characters with very little charisma and passion.

• Lacked the character/actor interaction of TOS and the broad, ensemble feel and success of DS9.

• No great dynamic between captain and first officer, unlike many TREK and similar type of story franchises, TV shows, movies, novels, etc.

• Already surpassed as great quality sci-fi and real drama by DS9, BABYLON 5, THE X FILES, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, FIREFLY and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (remake).

• Monumental failure as a movie series which showcased all the TV series weaknesses and demonstrated it a good TV series, but not as superior as the above mentioned series.

• Failure of movie series--along with VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE--almost and quite possibly did destroy TREK franchise.

• A good test of a show, franchise, movie, etc. and/or it character's is if it can be interesting, even if it is bad. TOS could do this, both as a TV series and a movie. TNG could not.

• TNG had no competition from quality science fiction (unlike DS9). This produced a warped sense of it's success--both quality and commercial.

• Viewing the TV series now, 2008, it already looks dated, soft and tame.

• Poor production design and FX. TOS had this problem too, but, it took this weakness and created it's own style, feel and made it it's own. Not TNG.

• 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.

QFT, MOFOs!

\S/

 

[The Old Mixer]

^Sorry, Supes, I have to call BS on several of those points.

• TNG is a rip-off of TOS (like VOYAGER and ENTERPRISE). Only DS9 forged new territory in the TREK franchise.

• Lacked the character/actor interaction of TOS and the broad, ensemble feel and success of DS9.

I loved DS9; the jury's still out for me as to whether I like it better than TNG. But I can't understand this fantasy that DS9 blazed new ground and TNG didn't. DS9 spun off from characters, concepts, and an entire production style that TNG had established. DS9 did not spring independently from TOS. Look at any element in which DS9 is praised as having "forged new territory", and you can find a waypoint between DS9 and TOS in TNG. The ensemble cast is a perfect example. TNG was far more ensemble-driven than TOS had been. Every main character had something to do and more than one episode a season that centered on them; plus they developed several recurring characters who appeared in more than two episodes, many of whom also supported entire stories and recurring subplots. (One of them even went on to become a main character on the sacred DS9.) DS9 just took what TNG had established a bit further, creating an even stronger ensemble.

• Already surpassed as great quality sci-fi and real drama by DS9, BABYLON 5, THE X FILES, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, FIREFLY and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (remake).

• TNG had no competition from quality science fiction (unlike DS9). This produced a warped sense of it's success--both quality and commercial.

Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees. Like it's not an accomplishment that TNG was the first successful, high-quality sci fi show to come down the pike in ages, first of all. And what do all of those other shows named owe their very existence to? The success of TNG. When TNG started, there was nothing like it on TV. By the time it ended its run, it had one spin-off up and running, another in the works, and countless imitators. And you would paint it like TNG accomplished nothing...!?!

• Poor production design and FX. TOS had this problem too, but, it took this weakness and created it's own style, feel and made it it's own. Not TNG.

That's funny...seems to me that at least the three Trek spin-offs that owe their very existence to the success of TNG pretty much worked from the production design and effects work that TNG had established. Did they continue to take things further? Of course. But those shows look a lot more like TNG than they do like TOS.