PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek: TNG Season 1



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2005-Oct-05, 02:13 PM
I have been watching the early episodes of TNG and I noticed that they seemed to take risks with some things that are lacking in the later seasons. Anyone notice the male crew members wearing skirts? Also, the whole male/female dynamic seems to be subtly different from what came later. Anyone else find this enjoyable?

Moose
2005-Oct-05, 02:16 PM
Gene's contribution. I prefer third season onward.

AstroSmurf
2005-Oct-05, 03:25 PM
Hmm, interesting. I'll keep it in mind as me and the SO are watching through the 1st season right now.

peter eldergill
2005-Oct-05, 06:17 PM
I look back now and think the first season stuff was pretty bad overall...probably the actors not knowing their characters very well I suppose

Pete

parallaxicality
2005-Oct-05, 06:32 PM
I don't know whether to hate or adore the first season of TNG. Much of what was produced was pure drivel (The Last Outpost is one of the most unendurable hours I can never have back; Code of Honor was so overtly racist I don't think I've ever seen it repeated on television; The Naked Now was so bad I can't even look back on it without wincing; Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil" was so pointless the writers spent the next five years apologising for it by spinning it off into some classic episodes like "The Measure of a Man," "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Legacy") but you're right; along with the drivel there were a number of idiosyncratic and risky episodes, such as "Where No One Has Gone Before" and "We'll Always Have Paris", that Star Trek subsequently never had the guts to develop. However, there were a number of episodes that, while not being particulalry bad, were very disappointing, the biggest example being "Hide and Q", "The Big Goodbye," and "Heart of Glory", all of which were brimming with some fascinating ideas, good enough to sustain many of the show's ongoing arcs for years to come, but which were uniformly all clunkers in the writing and acting departments. The actors, particularly Denise Crosby and Jonathan Frakes, felt wooden and awkward, not yet into their roles.

Gillianren
2005-Oct-05, 06:39 PM
now, now--Tasha's death wasn't the writers' fault. Denise Crosby just learned her lesson early: you can't escape Star Trek, even if you die in the first season. (also, never quit a successful TV show to have a movie career.)

vonmazur
2005-Oct-05, 09:46 PM
The only episode worth watching twice was, "The Inner Light".....(IMHO) The rest of them were barely tolerable, or just annoying, as has been pointed out above...

I think that Roddenberry had a fetish for androgynous youths in white robes, and his anti-smoking hang up was also apparent, I cannot blame him for all the "crappe" on STTNG, but he holds the bag for STTOS, and all the duplication and copouts that plagued the original series. I do not know who to blame for the Next Gen and all the awful shows in the first year....In spite of the gawdawful writing and the annoying use of "Deus ex Machinae" (more than once a decade), it was better than watching the other pluperfect mind rotting crapola that was being shown at the time....

Dale in Ala

Charly
2005-Oct-05, 10:55 PM
Roddenberry lost it.

He was booted off and TNG suddenly became watchable.

He was also removed from the feature films, and suddenly, they too became watchable.

Just cause you have one great idea, doesnt mean you have more than that one great idea.

What he did do was provide inspiration in others.

Moose
2005-Oct-05, 11:03 PM
He was booted off and TNG suddenly became watchable.

He was also removed from the feature films, and suddenly, they too became watchable.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression he was removed from the show/movies by virtue of the fact he was dead (Jim)?

[Edit:] No, I'm mistaken. I just checked the dates with IMDB, and he passed away somewhere between seasons four and five. Neat. So he was ditched then.

Van Rijn
2005-Oct-05, 11:51 PM
One of the problems was that he took the "Hopeful future" idea too far. Part of the appeal for the original Star Trek was that it wasn't a vision of a dark future - all too common in those days. Rather, it was one where they had problems, but generally things were far better than they are today.

Given that this new show was about "The Next Generation," it had to be even better, where problems were often intellectual. Unfortunately, utopia is boring.

There were a few early shows I found interesting. I liked "Where No One Has gone Before" because they were doing something different. Unfortunately, they didn't really do much with the story. "11001001" also was interesting, with the discussion of sentient computers, but again, it didn't go anywhere. But "The Arsenal Of Freedom" was a perfect example of how to do things wrong: They finally get some serious battle action, then break the tension by sitting down to discuss "feelings." Urrggh.

When they started realizing that they needed a bit of action and drama, the stories improved - somewhat.

James_Digriz
2005-Oct-06, 12:49 AM
Given that this new show was about "The Next Generation," it had to be even better, where problems were often intellectual. Unfortunately, utopia is boring.

Ah. Nicholas Van Rijn. Great series by Poul Anderson if that's what you intended as you nickname.

Your right but I still liked The Next Generation. I was able to let everything slide except Couselor Troi.

"No Captain. Don't fire Phasers. We need to talk about your feelings."

Yeah right.

Thats what made DS9 so great. Much darker. The Dominion War arc was fantastic. And while Babylon 5 was on at the same time it was Sci-Fi fan heaven. Remember they both came out with a one eyed character?

Van Rijn
2005-Oct-06, 01:18 AM
Ah. Nicholas Van Rijn. Great series by Poul Anderson if that's what you intended as you nickname.


Yes, that's it. Poul Anderson was one of my favorite authors.



Thats what made DS9 so great. Much darker. The Dominion War arc was fantastic. And while Babylon 5 was on at the same time it was Sci-Fi fan heaven. Remember they both came out with a one eyed character?

:naughty: This is unacceptable! You have to give me something to argue ... er... disagree with.

Of the recent Star Trek series, DS9 was my favorite, and B5 was fantastic. There was quite a bit to like on TNG, but it didn't start getting really interesting until they got out of the "future utopia" mindset. The last year or so of TNG had some pretty terrible episodes though.

Anyway, having a rat problem? I'd suggest some steel traps.

AKONI
2005-Oct-06, 01:59 AM
I look back now and think the first season stuff was pretty bad overall...probably the actors not knowing their characters very well I suppose

Pete

I agree. I always thought the acting was very stiff in the first season, and as time went on they portrayed their roles brilliantly.

James_Digriz
2005-Oct-06, 02:41 AM
Of the recent Star Trek series, DS9 was my favorite, and B5 was fantastic. There was quite a bit to like on TNG, but it didn't start getting really interesting until they got out of the "future utopia" mindset. The last year or so of TNG had some pretty terrible episodes though.

Anyway, having a rat problem? I'd suggest some steel traps.

Yep. DS9 is the best in my opinion as well. They really had some gut wrenching episodes. Like the one where Kira finds out her mother was Ducat's mistress or that one where that Cardassian changes his face to look like a war criminal and gets shot in the end. And the best of course: "The Visitor" with Tony Todd. Then there's the two times they burned Jadzia in love affairs. I mean cmon. Next Gen has nothing like "The House of Quark."

Yes. The Stainless Steel variety. Another great series although the first four are the best.

parallaxicality
2005-Oct-06, 07:11 AM
I hear a Stainless Steel Rat movie is finally in the offing.

DS9 was fantastic overall; it was remarkably consistent, even in its first season. I didn't really like the way they ended the Dominion War; it was a bit too convenient- the "nice" Federation gets to pat itself on the back for saving the Founders from genocide committed by the "nasty" Federation. But the fact remains, without that attempt of genocide the Federation would never have won the war.

Babylon 5 was OK. I was never too into it; it was too anthropocentric. It coudn't seem to make up its mind as to whether it was about the history of humans interacting with aliens or whether it was a grand galactic history in which humans only took part. The sudden shift from the multicultural epic of the Shadow War to the parochial crisis of Morgan Clark was not a good move, in my opinion.


Yes, that's it. Poul Anderson was one of my favorite authors.

And there I was thinking you'd named yourself after Rembrandt.

hippietrekx
2005-Oct-08, 09:18 PM
I agree. I always thought the acting was very stiff in the first season, and as time went on they portrayed their roles brilliantly.

I agree for most of the characters on this one, except for Data. Brent Spiner seemed to have stepped into the role great, but after season four or five it was almost like he was trying too hard...

--hippie

nomuse
2005-Oct-13, 01:35 AM
Reacting to banquo's opening post, Next Gen first lost my respect in one queasy little scene in which Deanna and Beverly are asked by an outsider why they wear make-up. "No-one forces us to," they assure this person, "we just like to." Un huh. And I wear high heels because of the beneficial effects on my tendons and joints.

Reacting to later posts, yah, the first season was really stumbling to define the characters. I don't think Jonathan Frakes really had a handle on Riker until he grew that beard. It took them a while to grow that ensemble. At that, though, they quite outdistanced Voyager -- Voyager finally gave up on actually trying to deal with ensemble dynamics, and resigned itself to doing a B'lanna story, a Seven of Nine story, another Seven of Nine story...

Jason Thompson
2005-Oct-14, 12:11 PM
DS9 was fantastic overall; it was remarkably consistent, even in its first season. I didn't really like the way they ended the Dominion War; it was a bit too convenient- the "nice" Federation gets to pat itself on the back for saving the Founders from genocide committed by the "nasty" Federation. But the fact remains, without that attempt of genocide the Federation would never have won the war.

I don't see that at all. The Founders were dying, but there was only one in the Alpha Quadrant (excluding Odo). The problems the Dominion had that led to the loss of the War had more to do with the Prophets' blocking their ships from entering from the Gamma Quadrant, so they were limited to what they could make in the Alpha Quadrant, and from the Cardassian uprising that was threatening their headquarters and facilities in the Alpha Quadrant. The sickness and the cure allowed the federation Alliance to win without much more catastrophic loss of life, since it convinced the Female Changeling to surrender rather than allow the Jem'hadar to fight to the last, but the outcome was certain defeat for the Dominion before then.

However, the final arc was far from perfect. Extreme Measures is one of the worst episodes of the entire 7 years, and a serious case of the good guys winning because the bad guys turn into complete idiots. If Section 31 was so good at hiding themselves, why send the only operative Bashir already knows and have him visit Bashir's quarters first?!

I would have liked to have seen the cure given to the Founders by the Federation, or at least one of the Defiant crew, rather than Odo. That would have made a nice first-hand demonstration to the Founders of the good will of at least some humanoids.