What's betta: Star Trek TNG or nuBSG?

[Anwar]

Probably better to say Not AS angsty.

 

[RandyS]

Except for CHUCK, LOST, DEXTER, CSI, MONK, DOCTOR WHO, SARAH CONNOR, and REAPER to name just a few . . . .

IMHO, of course.

Oops. forgot about bout Sarah Conner. I've only seen the DVD's so far. But I like what I've seen. I don't watch the others.

I stand corrected.

That doesn't change my opinion that New Galactica is nothing but nilistic, angst-ridden bullshit though.

So you don't think that T:tSSC is angsty?

Nowhere near the level of New Galactica, no. Sarah, John, and Cameron are working toward making a better world. All anybody on New Galactica ever did was wallow in their own misery and see who can outdo each other in idiotic behavior when their focus should have been on rebuilding their cvilization.

 

[Harvey]

I also don't think that TNG has aged badly. The first two seasons, maybe, but beyond that, it's a remarkably solid series - although being shot on video makes it fuzzier than I'd like.

The series was shot on 35mm film--just mastered on video. I believe the visual effects in the first two seasons were done directly on video, which is why they look noticeably fuzzier than the later effects on the DVDs.

 

[GalaxyX]

Before the series
She was abused as a child
She made a fatal mistake that caused her fiance to die
That was coupled with the fact that she really loved his brother

During the series
She was captured and experimented on by Simon - her ovary was removed - a very horrible and personal experience.
She accidently shoots her best friend.
She gets captured and tortured by Leoben who also leads her to believe she has a daughter - this is a lie.

She seemed to be a crazy chick even before the death of Apollo's brother. Not sure if the "abuse" is enough to explain it.

As the series went along she went from being "bitch psycho queen" to "bitch emo psycho queen". I didn't really see a major difference in her character, but the occasional times her vulnerabilities showed up I actually enjoyed her character.


Anyway, as far as TNG vs nuBSG is concerned, I like both, but for different reasons. TNG is a slick, polished show that is ripe with optimism about humanity. Throw in some good high concept Sci-Fi into that mix, and it created the winner that we now enjoy watching. IMO what hurt TNG the most is lack of action, and I think that had more to do with the budget when everything was still done with models and some cheap CGI.

nuBSG on the other hand tried to be a deep character drama about a humanity losing itself. It started out well, but just spiralled down into a bunch of nonsense at the end. Edward James Olmos practically carried the show IMO.

 

[Bishbot]

She seemed to be a crazy chick even before the death of Apollo's brother. Not sure if the "abuse" is enough to explain it.

Oh, she was always volatile, no doubt about that. I think we've all known people like that though, and the abuse she suffered definitely didn't help that.

 

[Devnull]

TNG is pretty dated after DS9 and BSG.

That's because it was made before either of those. Given Battlestar Galactica's very early 21st century tone, it's going to date a lot worse than TNG ever will.

That was not my point at all. It's not dated by how its tone relates to current events.

The quality of the show is dated. The bar has been set much higher by shows such as DS9, BSG(and whatever number of great non-science fiction series that you would like to include). Audiences expect more.

Better stories, more realistic characters, serialization, consequences etc... Television used to be the bastard child of the entertainment industry, now the quality of TV highly exceeds films.

If TNG aired new today it would not have done any better than Enterprise.

The show will always be important for having helped to rekindle science fiction and popularize it with a new generation and it was a starting point for some great writers and showrunners. It still doesn't hold up.

 

[DWF]

TNG is pretty dated after DS9 and BSG.

That's because it was made before either of those. Given Battlestar Galactica's very early 21st century tone, it's going to date a lot worse than TNG ever will.

That was not my point at all. It's not dated by how its tone relates to current events.

The quality of the show is dated. The bar has been set much higher by shows such as DS9, BSG(and whatever number of great non-science fiction series that you would like to include). Audiences expect more.

Better stories, more realistic characters, serialization, consequences etc... Television used to be the bastard child of the entertainment industry, now the quality of TV highly exceeds films.

If TNG aired new today it would not have done any better than Enterprise.

The show will always be important for having helped to rekindle science fiction and popularize it with a new generation and it was a starting point for some great writers and showrunners. It still doesn't hold up.

TNG dealt with a series of timeless ideas so I can't agree with you there, they just did it in a different way than Battlestar Galactica but the plots are still relevent.

 

[shivkala]

Apples and oranges... DS9 would be a better reference point, methinks...

Agree on the first part, but I don't even think you could compare it to DS9. The Trek franchise is built on a rather optimistic view of the future, even with the wars and other problems they encounter on DS9. BSG is about humanity facing the most pessimistic circumstances you can imagine.

 

[Neroon]

Apples and oranges... DS9 would be a better reference point, methinks...

Agree on the first part, but I don't even think you could compare it to DS9. The Trek franchise is built on a rather optimistic view of the future, even with the wars and other problems they encounter on DS9. BSG is about humanity facing the most pessimistic circumstances you can imagine.

That's true. However, I think the point that Klaus is making is that of all of the Trek shows, DS9 is perhaps best-suited for comparison to nuBSG. That's in part due to DS9 being the "darkest" of all of the Trek franchise offerings to date.

 

[Yoda]

I voted Galactica. TNG is great, no doubt, but as others have noted, TV has evolved some since the 80s. As it turns out, TNG was perfect to have around when I was a kid in the early nineties, and BSG was perfect to have around in my mid to late twenties

 

[firehawk12]

It's sort of not fair, because if you include the first two seasons, TNG becomes pretty garbage.
But S3-7 of TNG is just more even than BSG... and because of that, I'd say TNG was the better series.

 

[Yoda]

It's sort of not fair, because if you include the first two seasons, TNG becomes pretty garbage.
But S3-7 of TNG is just more even than BSG... and because of that, I'd say TNG was the better series.

Really? TNG S7? The one with Data wearing the mask? The one where the Ent gives birth to a space baby? The one where Crusher gets it on with a ghost? Environmentalists who hate warp drive? Wesley Crusher and Indians that are being forced off their land to a 'reservation'?

IMO that's more clunkers in one season of TNG than BSG had its entire run.

 

[firehawk12]

Well, you sort of get into apples and oranges. I think TNG succeeds as an episodic television show where BSG failed as a serialized television show.
I suppose it's also personal. If I had to sit through one show over the other, I'd definitely choose to sit through TNG over BSG... and despite RDM's fetish for Klingons in his Trek work, from my perspective many of his Trek scripts are superior to his BSG work.

Then again, I didn't really like BSG anymore after they finished the New Caprica arc, so that might colour my opinion.