TNG Fans UNITE!!!
- Thread starter patlandness
- Start date
Kegek said:
Angel4576... yes, Sisko had a journey and evolution that Picard didn't have. But Picard never needed that to be interesting. He was rough around the edges at first, but when he settled into his ways... he's someone I'd never want to see change, a great character. His experiences may not have been stretched over long arcs - though occasionally a few episodes ('The Best of Both Worlds' and 'Family', 'The Inner Light' and 'Lessons') but he was such a superb and engaging figure.
Sisko lacked Picard's charisma and wit. That's why he physically sparred with Q rather than indulging in mind games. Sisko was great, just not at Picard's level.
And another note: The Enterprise-D is just one of those sci-fi locations you'd love to live in. How many people would really want to be stuck in the chaotic weirdness of Moya, or the grim decor of the Galactica? Critics have called Picard's ship a hotel in space, but I've never thought that as a bad thing... it just looks so neat.
I'm not going to argue with any of that
I think both characters are fantastic, just in different ways, which is how it should be to be fair, I wouldn't have wanted a cheap Picard knockoff in charge of DS9. Firstly, what's the point, and furthermore, it's hardly likely that you were going to top Patrick Stewart's performance.
Picard, for me, is pretty much the embodiment of an ideal. Almost flawless, the kind of Captain that if you could choose attributes in his makeup, you'd have sat down and pretty much laid out what he ended up having.
On the other hand, you have Sisko, who, given the nature of the series (DS9), had to be different. I'm reminded of Sisko's "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" line. DS9 was far from paradise, and the nature of the Sisko character pretty much reflected that. Here was a man who'd lost his wife, suffered the associated guilt (would she have been aboard the Saratoga if not for him?), was left to raise their child, later found out that his wife wasn't who, or what, he thought she was, was betrayed by his best friend, girlfriend and security officer to the Maquis, saw his Son turn away from the path following in his footsteps, and eventually lost another friend (Jadzia). All at the same time as trying to come to terms with his role as Emissary to the Prophets, and for a good proportion of the time, against the backdrop of war and the possibility of invasion/defeat by the Dominion. Clearly, here was a bloke with plenty on his plate, and the weight of the world on his shoulders.
They're both so well written, and so well acted, that it's difficult to fault either character, but for me, as much as I like Picard, Sisko's ability to simply overcome adversity in the bleakest of circumstances, wins it for me
Pretty much my view.
If TNG had been more like DS9 then DS9 wouldn't have been half as good, simple as that. It was the difference that set the series aside for me. Loved TOS, loved the TNG update, and loved the darker path taken by DS9. Sadly, after that, it all went downhill as they tried to catch lightening in a bottle twice
Well said.
As Spider said, this is a notion that's been swept aside all too often by that subset of fans who seem determined to convince others that "their" show is best, other shows are (at best) inferior and (at worst) complete crap, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot. TNG - like any TV series - isn't perfect and it isn't going to appeal to everyone, but trashing it for not being like something that followed it is ridiculous.
It remains one of my favourite ever SF series, and Picard remains my favourite Trek captain - for all the reasons Kegek mentioned, and more besides. YMMV, but TNG's fine by me.
The childisch sets of TOS always make me laugh - I never could take that series serious - and DS9 is far overrated.
I just bought the DS9 DVDs until Season 3 and after I watched most of Season 3 I am actually thinking about stopping watching it and sell my previously bought DS9 DVDs, because boy are those DS9 episodes crap. I did not enjoy a single episode of Season 3 and found the Episodes of Season 1 + 2 dull also. Talk about bad writing.
Picard is PC, and that's far better than Sisko, who is more of a liar. At least Picard sticks to the truth to get things done, even if it make things more difficult. Sisko lies to Starfleet if it's in his interest. Yea, what a great rolemodel that Sisko is (puke).
TNG is the best. :thumbsup:
Probably the worst time to check out, Season 4 onwards, IMO, are where the series really hits its stride.
As for the first couple of seasons, not great, but light years ahead of TNG's first two years. Duet's as good as anything in TNG's first couple of years, and The Jem'Hadar's as jaw-dropping a finale as Best of Both Worlds, let alone anything in seasons one and two.
Sisko's role on DS9 is a strange one. Obviously his responsibility is to Starfleet, but there's also an obligation to Bajor, given his role of 'steward' over the station, and that of 'the emissary'. He faces conflicts of interest and conscience that Picard never had, on a daily basis.
I also thought for a long time that the first two seasons of TNG were not that good, because I didn't see them after the first run for some years and always read in the internets: "They're bad."
Until I bought the DVD sets of that seasons and found out that I still enjoy them a lot. They don't look that sophisticated, very 80's, but do have a way of story telling and character acting that let the show appear mystical and somewhat "out of this world" - which is great for a sci-fi show set hundreds of years ahead from now. And the episodes follow some interesting sci-fi concepts.
What makes the first seasons of TNG also interesting is that you can see the transition of old Trek into new Trek. Only TNG makes the growing of Star Trek from the old style to the new style that transparent.
I personally think that the first seasons actually add up to the quality of the show over its complete seven years run.
And about the PC: Because of that TNG is the Trek show that is inspiring to me, because it shows an alternative to how things are done in our days. If I watch Trek, I want to see something different from today and not "more of the same" in new clothes. The last one just bores me to death - and that's also because I actually don't like DS9 that much - it's just "more of the same" in Trek's clothing.
Agreed. The conscious choice to make Sisko different was definitely a wise one - they tried cloning Picard, and it wound up all, well, Janeway...
Like I've said, this is one reason why TNG and DS9 were great shows, but for different reasons. Sisko is fascinating because his arc, his close relationship with his father and son, his role as emissary, and his initially thankless task of trying to be that saint outside paradise.
On the subject of first seasons, TNG's first is largely marked by a lot of poor writing (with notable exceptions) and less than stellar acting (excluding key members of the principal cast, chiefly Patrick Stewart himself). DS9 has a lot of weak writing in its first season as well, but it's bland and formulaic rather than 'What the hell were they thinking?' kind of bad. Both shows get better in their second season - with a higher number of standout episodes, but still plenty of clunkers. While TNG hits its stride in the third season and never looks back, I think DS9 only really comes into its own... when it imports one of TNG's best regulars in the fourth season.
But when they got good, they got great.
^^ I think there tends to be generally two schools of thought as to when DS9 got better. Dependent on your view it's either:
1 - When the Dominion, and subsequently, the Defiant were introduced at the backend of season 2/start of season 3.
2 - When Worf came aboard for season 4.
Personally, I think both were instrumental. The Dominion arc was undoubtedly the pivotal plot point that started to push the series down a whole different route than Trek had previously done before, but then, Worf is such a great character, and the rest just seemed to up their game once he came onboard.
I think you're right regarding the respective opening years. Both TNG's first and second seasons had a few decent episodes; The Big Goodbye, Datalore, The Neutral Zone, Measure of a Man, Q-Who? Sadly they were matched by a few that were almost laughably poor. DS9 had the odd clunker (Move Along Home for example), and the odd episode that would stand up against anything from any other series (Duet, The Wire etc), but generally, yes, I think the consistency was of a more even standard than it was on TNG, where for me it went from the sublime to the ridiculous and back again, from one week to the next.
1 - When the Dominion, and subsequently, the Defiant were introduced at the backend of season 2/start of season 3.
2 - When Worf came aboard for season 4.
Personally, I think both were instrumental. The Dominion arc was undoubtedly the pivotal plot point that started to push the series down a whole different route than Trek had previously done before, but then, Worf is such a great character, and the rest just seemed to up their game once he came onboard.
I think you're right regarding the respective opening years. Both TNG's first and second seasons had a few decent episodes; The Big Goodbye, Datalore, The Neutral Zone, Measure of a Man, Q-Who? Sadly they were matched by a few that were almost laughably poor. DS9 had the odd clunker (Move Along Home for example), and the odd episode that would stand up against anything from any other series (Duet, The Wire etc), but generally, yes, I think the consistency was of a more even standard than it was on TNG, where for me it went from the sublime to the ridiculous and back again, from one week to the next.
I think that the main problem in DS9's first couple of seasons was that it wasn't standing out from TNG enough...they had a bold new setting, and they squandered it by running off to explore the POTW in Runabouts, doing stories that TNG could just as easily have done.
^^ Only three episodes from DS9's first season were largely planet-based (I'm thinking Battlelines, The Storyteller and Progress). If you discount episodes set on Bajor (which is a logical setting given the nature of the series) then there are five episodes in the second season, one of which is set on Cardassia (Tribunal), and one is set on a planet in the Gamma Quadrant, to set up the Dominion story (The Jem'hadar).
The Next Generation by contrast, half of the episodes from the first season alone were either planet-based or had a plot revolving around a planet.
The Next Generation by contrast, half of the episodes from the first season alone were either planet-based or had a plot revolving around a planet.
^I'd have to review the seasons again to be sure, but I remember it seemed like a lot of "generic Trek" stories at the time that just substituted Runabouts for the Enterprise. Just being set on Bajor didn't make it uniquely DS9, either..."The Storyteller", for example, could have taken place on any generic POTW. Call it the Bajoran Village of the Week.
Newt said:
Dude, that has to be the most intelligent thing I've ever read on TBBS. And I agree with you 100%
Thank you.
The fact of the matter, and something that escapes a lot of folks, is that all five series produced some really great episodes. All five series also produced garbage that should have never been seen by the eyes of man.
It is the personal way the individual rates the level of good to garbage that determines their favorites.
It frightens me to see you say sensible stuff like this.Spider said:
The fact of the matter, and something that escapes a lot of folks, is that all five series produced some really great episodes. All five series also produced garbage that should have never been seen by the eyes of man.
It is the personal way the individual rates the level of good to garbage that determines their favorites.
Seriously, I agree. Well said.
TNG is awesome. I love TNG, DS9 and VOY equally, although all for different reasons. I never entirely got into TOS and ENT just didn't click with me, but I do like them.
I look at TNG in sense that the Ent-D is one of the flagships of the Federation and the crew had to be the gold standard. Hence the PC-ness and lack of inter-crew conflict. In a way, it works.
I look at TNG in sense that the Ent-D is one of the flagships of the Federation and the crew had to be the gold standard. Hence the PC-ness and lack of inter-crew conflict. In a way, it works.
Star Trek is kind of like the Grateful Dead. When they're in the zone, it's the best, even sublime. When they're off, it's downright painful. But you don't get to that high level without taking a chance on it.
But also like the Dead, Trek fans have their favorite periods.
I love all these series. Haven't gotten into ENT yet...nice looking ship though.
But TNG was something special compared to the others, in terms of its reach. I don't really care much about ratings, but it is impressive nonetheless.
The PC element of TNG, I don't see, don't understand, I think it's just PC to say that it was PC. I think it was and is highly un-PC to suggest that humanity will evolve beyond the religious insanity of the "chosen people" myth and war-mongering of today.
Just get that kid off the bridge!
But also like the Dead, Trek fans have their favorite periods.
I love all these series. Haven't gotten into ENT yet...nice looking ship though.
But TNG was something special compared to the others, in terms of its reach. I don't really care much about ratings, but it is impressive nonetheless.
The PC element of TNG, I don't see, don't understand, I think it's just PC to say that it was PC. I think it was and is highly un-PC to suggest that humanity will evolve beyond the religious insanity of the "chosen people" myth and war-mongering of today.
Just get that kid off the bridge!
