- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1,088
Pretty rare in TV to make a character go from universally hated to beloved in just 9 episodes.
Television The Star Trek Thread V6.0
- Thread starter sverre054
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2006
- Messages
- 28,499
- Reaction score
- 1,707
The showrunners.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2006
- Messages
- 28,499
- Reaction score
- 1,707
Done a great job with him. Sadly just so he can hand the ship over to Seven before he carked it. Asshole Shaw would have been a fun skipper on a future show.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 4,968
The story is interesting, even if the Borg has been a played out narrative arc during the last 30 years of Star Trek story telling. The series may have benefited from reintroducing Enterprise D in season 1 - episode 1 or 2 (as opposed to the second-to-last episode of season 3).
If only Star Trek was more intellectually stimulating, focusing on galactic exploration, galactic fantasy, levity. I understand that writing for that type of show can become mundane, with a reliance on tedious technobabble to culminate episodes. Yet, since the advent of the Borg and the dominion war of Deep Space Nine, Star Trek has been a real downer, man. What ever happened to the principle view of peace and love and a tolerant, stunningly badass, galactic navy?
Perhaps the future will never become Roddenberry's vision. That the future is not necessarily something to look forward to. I just feel that the world was a better place when Star Trek was more positive and intellectually appealing than a 1990's (not 70's nor 80's) John Carpenter film.
If only Star Trek was more intellectually stimulating, focusing on galactic exploration, galactic fantasy, levity. I understand that writing for that type of show can become mundane, with a reliance on tedious technobabble to culminate episodes. Yet, since the advent of the Borg and the dominion war of Deep Space Nine, Star Trek has been a real downer, man. What ever happened to the principle view of peace and love and a tolerant, stunningly badass, galactic navy?
Perhaps the future will never become Roddenberry's vision. That the future is not necessarily something to look forward to. I just feel that the world was a better place when Star Trek was more positive and intellectually appealing than a 1990's (not 70's nor 80's) John Carpenter film.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 3,033
- Reaction score
- 1,201
yeah, those day, like TNG , were a masterpiece. You could mull those episodes over for days thinking about the story,underlying message, the open ethical conclusion left to the viewer. But always giving the viewer a sense of positivity under it all. When was there a show like that the last time
...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1,088
Yes we must never forget Gene had a grand vision, but towards the end of his life, while making TNG, his rules made the stories rigid and boring. TNG didn't hit its stride until Rick Berman took the reigns in season 3.
Have you watched Strange new worlds? It is more of a traditional TOS style, and more humor is built in, without making it ridiculous.
D
Deleted member 110072
Guest
I tend to think though theres a difference between a show having dark subject matter and not having warmth to it, the X-files I think is an obvious example of a show which could get very dark but the lead characters were innately very likeble and human.
I think the turning point seemed to be the BSG remake personally, were edginess for its own sake came to dominate sci fi. To be fair I enjoyed that and the Expanse quite a bit BUT I think its the kind of thing which is a bit too easy to take the low effort route with, edginess can be a substitute for quality and effort.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2022
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 1,269
TNG clearly needed fresh writing and outlook, but it never lost the "soul" of Star Trek.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1,088
Keeps a academy award winner in the trek family, without forcing them them to a mutli year commitment. They have long been saying they have been wanting to make TV movie trek films. Let's be honest the production values on DSC were Hollywood movie quality, so this makes sense to do them on paramount+.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 4,968
I maintain that TNG hit its stride midway through season 1. Berman was chosen not because he was a creative genius, but more so because he was a reliable yes man and productionally efficient (I like Berman's TNG but he ran out of steam around season 5). Roddenberry and his attorney would not have had it any other way, as this arrangement further secured his legacy of The Great Bird of the Galaxy. That is why it had to be either Nimoy or Roddenberry. The future of Star Trek had to be one or the other's vision and no one else's. Although confining, Roddenberry and Nimoy's visions made Star Trek. Picard season 3 seems more like a vision from Steven King.
I have viewed 6 or 7 Strange New Worlds episodes. The visuals are exquisite. Though, the characters are a bit wooden and the stories haven't spoken to me as of yet. Except for T'Pring and Chapel. I admire their on-screen chemistry and leadership characteristics. There was also a brief, yet charming, scene with the doctor fishing outdoors. The Spock character needs work.
I missed the BSG remake. The original Battlestar Galactica is a quintessential show for anyone looking to explore the sci-fi genre, which aired on MeTV not that long ago. I do remember watching Babylon 5 for a few years, but was never captivated like the more visually engaging Star Trek, BSG, and Buck Rogers. It could have been intellectual or edgy. I don't recollect. It lacked something and I tuned out (early-mid 90's).
Was it the omnipresent 90's edginess that stalled the great art of science fiction, lo these many years?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2022
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 1,269
The BSG reboot was very different from the original series, and it wasn't perfect, but it was worth the watch.
D
Deleted member 110072
Guest
I'd say very early on TNG was struggling to come out of the shadow of the original series, Farpoint itself not so much but the episodes that followed did feel like they could have been from TOS and I believe some were actually written for the abandoned Phase 2 series from the 70's weren't they?
I think after that it was still rather lacking in polish and some of the characterisations were a bit off but I do think parts of season 1 and 2 are very watchable. Perhaps what makes that era feel a little different to the shows peak is that it seemed to be going for something a bit different tonally? a lot of those earlier episodes tend to have an atmospheric horror/thriller bent to them which afterwards only tended to crop up quite rarely in the Berman era.
Personally I liked TNG right to the end but you could argue seasons 6-7 were starting to go over the same ground quite often, episodes that felt like they were remakes of previous ideas.
The first season of Babylon 5 is a bit patchy but I would argue thats another example of a show which has some pretty dark subject matter BUT doesnt really go for an edgy tone, it keeps the characters more likeble.
Again BSG itself and The Expanse I mostly enjoyed BUT I do think they kind of set a pattern with modern sci fi were everything has to be edgy which can IMHO be a path to hackish work, its easier to push out "edgy" content with everyone screaming at each other without the same level of effort or talent.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2022
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 1,269
It was definitely nostalgic. It hit the right notes in that sense. It was a good send off.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 4,968
Roddenberry was well known for recycling his old ideas, mainly because he did not enjoy writing. He preferred to generate ideas, delegate the development of stories to writers, then rewrite the writers. Even Data was a throw back to his failed project, The Questor Tapes. My understanding is that the recycling of Phase 2 was a primary component of his pitch to produce TNG. The story frameworks were already done, so why not use it? Even so, the studio wanted Nimoy for TNG.
TNG reminds me of early Seinfeld, which I also prefer over the later seasons. Aesthetically, early TNG does not quite look right and as you say, some of the characterizations are uneven. But the episodes are not overly complex, there is a balance between humor and suspense, and the show has a core element about it that remains fresh, to me. I will concede that the worst episodes were in the first few years.
Berman was quite an adequate producer. But the show became a little bland on his watch. It became a touch too corporate. Even the uniforms became less inspiring by season 3. By season 7, they had Picard in dim grey for a few episodes.
Gates McFadden is beautiful, btw.
The melodramatic soap opera episodes from season 4 or 5 onward where everyone is wearing dull grey or the far-flung twilight zone episodes could have used Roddenberry's touch to optimize the final deliverable.
I suppose the younger crowds will always gravitate toward edgy content. You don't have to do any homework besides the basics. And you don't have to pay writers to develop original, non-derivative stories that may be expensive to film, a la Harlan Ellison. After all, edginess turned SEGA into a contender. But it is the creative Nintendo that remains a player to this day.
D
Deleted member 110072
Guest
Roddenberry was well known for recycling his old ideas, mainly because he did not enjoy writing. He preferred to generate ideas, delegate the development of stories to writers, then rewrite the writers. Even Data was a throw back to his failed project, The Questor Tapes. My understanding is that the recycling of Phase 2 was a primary component of his pitch to produce TNG. The story frameworks were already done, so why not use it? Even so, the studio wanted Nimoy for TNG.
TNG reminds me of early Seinfeld, which I also prefer over the later seasons. Aesthetically, early TNG does not quite look right and as you say, some of the characterizations are uneven. But the episodes are not overly complex, there is a balance between humor and suspense, and the show has a core element about it that remains fresh, to me. I will concede that the worst episodes were in the first few years.
Berman was quite an adequate producer. But the show became a little bland on his watch. It became a touch too corporate. Even the uniforms became less inspiring by season 3. By season 7, they had Picard in dim grey for a few episodes.
Gates McFadden is beautiful, btw.
The melodramatic soap opera episodes from season 4 or 5 onward where everyone is wearing dull grey or the far-flung twilight zone episodes could have used Roddenberry's touch to optimize the final deliverable.
I suppose the younger crowds will always gravitate toward edgy content. You don't have to do any homework besides the basics. And you don't have to pay writers to develop original, non-derivative stories that may be expensive to film, a la Harlan Ellison. After all, edginess turned SEGA into a contender. But it is the creative Nintendo that remains a player to this day.
I'd agree Seinfeld followed a similar kind of path even if our preferences are a bit different, both I think stayed strong until the end BUT felt like they were going over similar ideas a lot after peaking in the mid seasons.
Whilst early TNG felt like TOS in some ways in others I actually think it was a bit of a reaction against it, especially against the TOS films of the 80's which really played up the idea of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy trio friendship as the central theme. It does end up feeling like its trying to take itself so seriously it often ends up coming across as a bit bland, lacking in human characters to sell the stories besides ironically Data.
I do think by the third season and for the rest of the run Picard becomes THE Trek character for me simply because he's so well rounded, not at all "edgy" and able to play the calm diplomat but also able to play off of almost every other character dramatically and cover so many situations tonally. The TNG films definately saw a decline in that with more cheap drama around Picard but the recent series he's simply unrecognisable
Sci fi does I think often have a bit of a chip on its shoulder about "being taken seriously", with some reason you could argue given how its often been mocked BUT I think that can often lead to losing the human element. Stuff like the TNG era, the X-files, Babylon 5, Quantum Leap I think feel like very human shows partly because they are not overly obsessed with taking themselves seriously, the humour in them which some hardcore fans hated at the time is part of what does that were as in the current era I feel "edginess" has become too dominant. Something like say Andor carries it off very well but really neo trek for me is a perfect example of how it becomes a tool for cheap hackish writting.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 9,197
- Reaction score
- 4,968
One reason why TNG reacted against the 80's movies may have to do with Roddenberry, Nimoy, and Shatner not liking each other. Roddenberry and Nimoy's conflicts began during TOS due to contract issues and Roddenberry siding with Shatner as being the de facto star of the show, and then again after Roddenberry unceremoniously rescinded his offer for Nimoy to play Questor. After TOS, according to both Nimoy and Shatner, Roddenberry owed everyone money from Lincoln Enterprises profits, Roddenberry's personal company that sold Star Trek merchandise. Shatner, who described Roddenberry as a chiseler, drew his ire once more when he seemingly borrowed material from the unproduced god thing script for Star Trek V.
Before TNG was developed, Roddenberry had everyone watch Aliens for ideas and general direction. In fact, Marina Sirtis was first signed on to play Yar, with Denise Crosby playing Troi. Sirtis reminded Roddenberry of Vasquez, who was the model for Yar.
Picard is also one of my favorite characters in the Star Trek universe. He did, at times, come off as a fuddy duddy in the earlier episodes. In a foot race or a fist fight, he loses to Kirk. Though, if you're going to serve on a Starship for an extended tour, you want Picard as your skipper.
I don't have much to say about the movies, other than Stewart being serviceable as Picard. I do believe that Stewart had a hand in the direction of those scripts, and then Spiner for the last film. In Picard, Stewart does not have screen presence. I feel that the production could have worked around that. There are direction, cinematography, and script issues with Picard. I watched the last episode today and felt, what was the point? I did like a few of the episodes, but the series was not especially enchanting, nor did the conclusion take me to a special place.
An observable shift occurred during the 90's in entertainment, perhaps being more pronounced with sci fi, that you are very perceptive of. My opinion is that the 1990's quenched the romanticism that sparked during the renaissance. I did get into X-Files for a while (it was on right after Brisco County Jr.).
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2015
- Messages
- 16,936
- Reaction score
- 13,800
Just watched the last episode, I enjoyed it. Outside of a few things, some nitpicks, and a couple particularly weak episodes I enjoyed Picard S3. The finale was satisfying to me even if the Borg are played out and the writing uncreative. It gave me a nice feeling at the end and I thought Q coming back to mess with Jack was a nice touch. Seven commanding the Enterprise G I'm definitely on board with though I was hoping for a new ship to be the Enterprise I thought the title change was a nice touch.
The D was never my favorite Enterprise but it was nice to see it back in action one more time.
I found Picard S3 flawed but very enjoyable.
The D was never my favorite Enterprise but it was nice to see it back in action one more time.
I found Picard S3 flawed but very enjoyable.
