Since it's a slow Friday, I thought this post had some interesting points..
I've decided I really just don't like Star Trek: Next Generation (ST: TNG) very much. For years, I was its defender against all comers. I liked it a lot when it was still on the air. And I liked it in reruns for awhile. But the more I watch it, the less I find redeeming about it (you might see my influence on this score in this quasi editorial). There are things I still like about it, but it's become increasingly difficult to separate the quadrotriticale from the chaff. But, for now let me speak in broad brushstrokes. Everything good about the show, they fell over backwards into.
Indeed, almost everything about TNG was designed to be the opposite of The Original Series (TOS). They originally thought that Ryker was going to be this really powerful personality, a James T. Kirk as second-in-command who actually kept the captain safely on board. But, he sucked. He was a bad actor, and he allowed himself to be upstaged by a Euroweenie with a French attitude and name (in fairness Patrick Stewart is a much better actor). The original Trek was a Cold War drama where a Kennedy-esque captain, exploring the new, final, frontier was willing to pay any price, bear any burden for decency and freedom. The enemies were totalitarians — Klingons, Romulans etc. The new Trek took the Prime Directive deadly seriously and went out of its way time and again to set itself off from the understated Americanism of the original series. Now, the greatest enemies were the Ferengi — runaway capitalists with s who looked like a mix between Nazi caricatures of Jews and the original Nosferatu. They failed miserably as villains and, over time, had to become comedic relief. The Borg were eventually introduced as the signature bad guys of Star Trek because — guess what? — collectivists always make for better enemies than capitalists, even bad capitalists. But one gets the distinct impression that if the producers had their druthers, the villains in Star Trek would have remained anti-environmental, free-market, unilateralists until the bitter end.
But we can come back to that. What also drove me crazy was how someone got it into their head that Star Trek needed to be a showcase for the acting chops of the entire ensemble. So one episode we get to follow Dr. Crusher around the ship for a frick'n hour as she tries to muster a feminist complaint in the 23rd century. In another episode, we're expected to sustain interest in Troi's romantic life. The constant explorations of Data's inner life at least had some sci-fi benefits — he was an android after all — but even here the priority seemed to be to show that Brent Spiner can act.
Which brings me to the hideous holodeck. It makes noooooo sense scientifically. But we can forgive that, I guess. But it makes even less sense dramatically — for a sci-fi show. Who wants to watch the crew of the USS Enterprise solve a 1930s crime story — a billion frick'n times? In interviews, you could tell that the actors though the holodeck was perhaps the best part of the show because it allowed them to do all sorts of different and exciting things as actors. Well guess what? The show is not about the actors! The most successful star of the whole series was William Shatner for Pete's sake.
What's interesting, to me at least, is that TOS still holds up, while TNG basically does not. The acting, the effects and even, in a sense, the writing of TNG is better. But the original series has a soul and a clear vision. The vision of TNG is a post Cold War vision and as such it lacked coherence. It tried to marry Roddenberry's optimistic dream of the future with a critical stance toward the present, and it came up with mush. The best things about TNG were those things that the fans wanted — more war, more Worf, more action — and the producers stumbled on. Contrast this with Battlestar Galactica, which has a critical, albeit complicated, vision of our own time but also has a pessimistic vision of our future (or what might turn out to be our future). One could defend TNG college-administrators-in-space goody-goody banality by arguing that it was an interesting and somewhat accurate reflection on the "holiday from history" zeitgeist that saturated the 1990s while Battlestar Galactica reflects our more interesting times. But that just underscores how Battlestar Galactica is, in fact, interesting and Star Trek the Next Generation really isn't, at least not anymore.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step. – C. S. Lewis
I JUST started watching TNG from beginning to end the other day.
I'm on the third season now. It's funny this post coincidentally popped up.
Riker isn't that bad at all, in my opinion. Picard and Sisko are tough for me to put a ribbon on though...I'm leaning towards Sisko a bit more only because DS9 got a LOT more personal with their characters.
DS9 is my favorite of the series. Dominion wars, alliance with the Klingons, shapeshifter political sabotage, it's just more exciting to watch episode to episode for me.
I have all 9 seasons if anyone wants them burned and mailed anywhere :P
How do you like this spoiler, motherfucker? -Lyion
I never cared for TNG and have never seen a single episode of the other spinoffs but will watch the original series any time I find it on even though I must have seen every episode at least 20 times.
Agree with Zan, best series of all of them. DS9 had 2 to 3 growing pains years but blossomed to into a great show also.
Best TNG epsidoe, when they're caught in a time loop and the ship constantly keeps getting destroyed because they keep picking the wrong course of action.
Adivina wrote:We are the most bipolar acting community, bunch of manics with the mood swings on here.
Zanchief wrote:I think you all know where I stand on this.
The Next Generation is the only Star Trek series worth a damn, and it happens to be one of the best shows in the history of television.
Well Zan and I have one thing in common. =) (About the best show, it was so long as that fucking faggot kid wasn't "saving the day"--that far-fetched gay ass shit got real old real fast.)
Lyion wrote:If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, she'll win the nomination.
Tossica wrote:Seriously, there is NO WAY Sony is going to put HD-DVD out of the game.
Kaemon wrote:Inner Light is an excellent episode but I didn't get the name from there. I think Picard was called Kamen or Kamin or some shit there.
That was a great episode but sad at the end. The only episode that made me more sad was when Data tried to create an offspring. That ending seriously tugged at the heartstrings-I shit you not.
Lyion wrote:If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, she'll win the nomination.
Tossica wrote:Seriously, there is NO WAY Sony is going to put HD-DVD out of the game.
Diekan wrote:Kirk sucked - Shatner was/is a terrible actor.
TNG is the best of all the lot and the movies are by far better than the original series' movies.
Although Shatner WAS a terrible actor, Kirk remains one of the most memorable TV characters ever.
The first 3 Star Trek movies are better than any of the NG movies. After the original trilogy, they got painfully bad.
Well the actually original star trek trilogy consists of episode 2, 3 and 4, and I do agree they make up the better portion of the run of theatrical star trek films but, 6 The Final Frontier, and 8 First Contact are much better films then 3.
But that doesn't really matter because we're talking about TV shows, and TNG is the best of the bunch. Shatner may be memorable, but so are a bunch of crap characters like Chandler Bing, and Frasier Crane, so who cares what's remembered. Picard is the better character and the better actor.
s who looked like a mix between Nazi caricatures of Jews and the original Nosferatu. They failed miserably as villains and, over time, had to become comedic relief. The Borg were eventually introduced as the signature bad guys of Star Trek because — guess what? — collectivists always make for better enemies than capitalists, even bad capitalists. But one gets the distinct impression that if the producers had their druthers, the villains in Star Trek would have remained anti-environmental, free-market, unilateralists until the bitter end.
