Scifi TV Discussion Thread

[Wallenburg]

I haven't seen more than two full TOS episodes, but have watched almost every TNG episode. Why?
Because, despite TOS being so original, the visuals suck butt and Shitner's acting is godawful. In contrast, TNG is relatively spectacular and Patrick Stewart is a wonderful actor (although a British man playing a French character makes no sense).
Plus, you get Data and Worf and Wesley, who all have problems fitting in on the crew, making character development much more thorough.
Lastly, the Q and the Borg. They give the show so much dimension, and the interaction between empires is far more complex. What did TOS have? Kill Klingons on sight, stay away from the Romulans.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

I haven't seen more than two full TOS episodes, but have watched almost every TNG episode. Why?
Because, despite TOS being so original, the visuals suck butt and Shitner's acting is godawful. In contrast, TNG is relatively spectacular and Patrick Stewart is a wonderful actor (although a British man playing a French character makes no sense).
Plus, you get Data and Worf and Wesley, who all have problems fitting in on the crew, making character development much more thorough.
Lastly, the Q and the Borg. They give the show so much dimension, and the interaction between empires is far more complex. What did TOS have? Kill Klingons on sight, stay away from the Romulans.

couldn't have said it better myself.

[New haven america]

I haven't seen more than two full TOS episodes, but have watched almost every TNG episode. Why?
Because, despite TOS being so original, the visuals suck butt and Shitner's acting is godawful. In contrast, TNG is relatively spectacular and Patrick Stewart is a wonderful actor (although a British man playing a French character makes no sense).
Plus, you get Data and Worf and Wesley, who all have problems fitting in on the crew, making character development much more thorough.
Lastly, the Q and the Borg. They give the show so much dimension, and the interaction between empires is far more complex. What did TOS have? Kill Klingons on sight, stay away from the Romulans.

You seem to forget the TOS was made in the 60's, there's no real way you can fairly compare the two series... (Except for the crew of each series, the crew are fair game)

[New Roma Republic]

I haven't seen more than two full TOS episodes, but have watched almost every TNG episode. Why?
Because, despite TOS being so original, the visuals suck butt and Shitner's acting is godawful. In contrast, TNG is relatively spectacular and Patrick Stewart is a wonderful actor (although a British man playing a French character makes no sense).
Plus, you get Data and Worf and Wesley, who all have problems fitting in on the crew, making character development much more thorough.
Lastly, the Q and the Borg. They give the show so much dimension, and the interaction between empires is far more complex. What did TOS have? Kill Klingons on sight, stay away from the Romulans.

You seem to forget the TOS was made in the 60's, there's no real way you can fairly compare the two series... (Except for the crew of each series, the crew are fair game)

Plus without TOS, there could be not TNG. Roddenberry creating something groundbreaking when he made TOS. It went on to break both the racial and sexual barriers.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I haven't seen more than two full TOS episodes, but have watched almost every TNG episode. Why?
Because, despite TOS being so original, the visuals suck butt and Shitner's acting is godawful. In contrast, TNG is relatively spectacular and Patrick Stewart is a wonderful actor (although a British man playing a French character makes no sense).
Plus, you get Data and Worf and Wesley, who all have problems fitting in on the crew, making character development much more thorough.
Lastly, the Q and the Borg. They give the show so much dimension, and the interaction between empires is far more complex. What did TOS have? Kill Klingons on sight, stay away from the Romulans.

You seem to forget the TOS was made in the 60's, there's no real way you can fairly compare the two series... (Except for the crew of each series, the crew are fair game)

Also TOS had like, no budget, while TNG had a massive budget, rolling on the heels of the success from the TOS movies.

[Wallenburg]

You seem to forget the TOS was made in the 60's, there's no real way you can fairly compare the two series... (Except for the crew of each series, the crew are fair game)

Also TOS had like, no budget, while TNG had a massive budget, rolling on the heels of the success from the TOS movies.

TNG pulled Star Trek up from a cult following to the largest fandom in the world.

[New haven america]

Also TOS had like, no budget, while TNG had a massive budget, rolling on the heels of the success from the TOS movies.

TNG pulled Star Trek up from a cult following to the largest fandom in the world.

1. No, it's not, it's only around #6.
2. That's because TNG had more money. TOS had the budget of dirt and Roddenberry was still able to make a truly revolutionary show for it's time(And I say that as someone who's not a big fan of TOS, still seen most of the eps. though).

[Madiganistan]

And the moral justification for Picard disobeying orders in Insurrection are backward and wrong.

Yeah the arguments been made to death

There doesn't even need to be an argument-- just point that Journey's End is literally the exact same plot, except Picard is written consistent with his established character and Insurrection replaced the interesting moral dilemma between him and the Indian chieftain with the most awkward romance in cinematic history. Until Attack of the Clones came around, of course.

I find that it's generally just a good idea to pretend that the TNG movies aren't canon; they completely contradict everything that's been established about both the Star Trek universe and the identities of the main characters (most consequentially Picard, of course). Star Trek's one case where a comprehensive re-imagining actually created a better moviegoing experience than anything released after 1994-- at least the rebooted series incorporated the "alternate timeline" element which, while lazy and perhaps could've been more effectively executed, provides *some* sort of explanation for seeming contradictions in semantics and character.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yeah the arguments been made to death

There doesn't even need to be an argument-- just point that Journey's End is literally the exact same plot, except Picard is written consistent with his established character and Insurrection replaced the interesting moral dilemma between him and the Indian chieftain with the most awkward romance in cinematic history. Until Attack of the Clones came around, of course.

I find that it's generally just a good idea to pretend that the TNG movies aren't canon; they completely contradict everything that's been established about both the Star Trek universe and the identities of the main characters (most consequentially Picard, of course). Star Trek's one case where a comprehensive re-imagining actually created a better moviegoing experience than anything released after 1994-- at least the rebooted series incorporated the "alternate timeline" element which, while lazy and perhaps could've been more effectively executed, provides *some* sort of explanation for seeming contradictions in semantics and character.

*after 98

[Madiganistan]

I haven't seen more than two full TOS episodes, but have watched almost every TNG episode. Why?
Because, despite TOS being so original, the visuals suck butt and Shitner's acting is godawful. In contrast, TNG is relatively spectacular and Patrick Stewart is a wonderful actor (although a British man playing a French character makes no sense).
Plus, you get Data and Worf and Wesley, who all have problems fitting in on the crew, making character development much more thorough.
Lastly, the Q and the Borg. They give the show so much dimension, and the interaction between empires is far more complex. What did TOS have? Kill Klingons on sight, stay away from the Romulans.

[I don't get why Trekkies are so hellbent on critically comparing TOS to TNG-- they're totally different shows with different tones.

The whole point of the original Star Trek series was to depict a future in which all of humanity was working together.

Do your best to do a bit of exercise in epistomological awareness-- take away everything you know about cinema, the evolution of screenwriting tropes, modern day cynicism toward overplayed plotlines, etc. Put yourself in a world where advertisements actually advertised things, color television is a brand new thing, and the most compelling televised sci-fi we've ever seen, in terms of both storytelling and visuals, was delivered by Rod Serling.

Also consider the fact that institutionally enforced racism is alive and well in many parts of the United States and we're in the apex of nationwide racial violence, culminating in riots and protests the likes of which make the #BlackLivesMatter campaign look like a schoolyard disagreement over who gets to use the good ball. Then tack on the whole impending threat of mutually ensured destruction vis a vis thermonuclear war or whatever, and you get the climate Roddenberry was trying to be optimistic about.

Ancillary crew members in TOS (and by this, I mean people who aren't Kirk and Spock) were basically just stereotypes because that's what they needed to be: you've got a black chick, a Scotsman, a Chinese guy, a Russian, and all these other people united under one banner, and the thing that made it so groundbreakingly revolutionary was the fact that they did so without their individual ethnic and racial identities being actively discussed in the script (emphasized because contemporary social justice seems to have forgotten just how effective it was). Sure, the way their background influenced their character is glaringly evident, but in the end Uhuru wasn't the black lady who did linguistics shit, she was the linguistics person.

Of course, uniting all these disparate races and factions in the mid sixties necessitated common enemies. Just as the crew of the Enterprise were fairly stereotypical and one-dimensional, so were the opponents they faced. TOS was less about super complex narratives and thoroughly fleshed out characters, and more about making a profound statement about ourselves and our potential in an era that desperately needed a counter-proposal to what seemed to be the darkest of times. "Shitner" understood that when he sabotaged a take that effectively forced the network to air the first interracial kiss, and MLK understood that when he implored Nichelle Nichols to stay on the show when she was thinking about leaving.

I prefer TNG too. I think most people do, because it came at a time when both the series and screenwriting in general had evolved and was in favor of stories that provided a bit of more moral grey-- also didn't hurt that they had a shitload more money to work with. But even still, that moral grey in subsequent series presents itself in ways consistent with the Roddenberry tradition: we see a Klingon, a Borg, a Ferengi, a Romulan, etc. either working in or with Starfleet, and even see some detailed examples of *how* disparate communities begin to find common ground (the most ready example I can think of being the conversation between Miles O'Brien and the Cardassian in Ten Forward during "The Wounded." There's no conclusive rapprochement, but admission that their actions and prejudices were shaped by the necessities and fears of war; that sort of admission and mutual understanding is an early stage of reconciliation).

TNG explored and fleshed out a great idea, but it was that idea, so defiant during the time of its inception, that was culturally transformative. It's what actually mattered.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Ugh I'm watching chain of command. The Crew are all pissing me off. Like Jesus tits you're a fucking military crew, on a fucking dangerous mission. Pull your head out of your ass and do what the fuck your told. Welcome to the Navy bitch

[Tarsonis Survivors]

They also wouldn't give this assignment to the wonder triplets here either.

This is a job for SFI or in a perfect world the Star Fleet Marine Corps

[Madiganistan]

Ugh I'm watching chain of command. The Crew are all pissing me off. Like Jesus tits you're a fucking military crew, on a fucking dangerous mission. Pull your head out of your ass and do what the fuck your told. Welcome to the Navy bitch

I kind of felt the same way-- I mean, their reaction would be one thing if Jellico had been hiding everything and giving no explanation whatsoever for uncharacteristically weighty demands the way the Picard clone did in "Allegiance," but the senior staff are well aware of the fact that they're on the precipice of open war.

[Madiganistan]

They also wouldn't give this assignment to the wonder triplets here either.

Disagree. The grounds for Picard being a necessary inclusion on the team are pretty reasonably established, even if he's far from the most qualified person to lead an infiltration ground mission-- that's why Jellico and others are pretty blunt about the fact that this'd probably be a one-way trip.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Everyone in Starfleet took their Incompetency pills it seems

[Tarsonis Survivors]

They also wouldn't give this assignment to the wonder triplets here either.

Disagree. The grounds for Picard being a necessary inclusion on the team are pretty reasonably established, even if he's far from the most qualified person to lead an infiltration ground mission-- that's why Jellico and others are pretty blunt about the fact that this'd probably be a one-way trip.

I must have missed that

[Ameriganastan]

I thought this was a Star Trek sketch until I watched SFDebris review Dune last night...I feel like a yutz.

[Charellia]

Ugh I'm watching chain of command. The Crew are all pissing me off. Like Jesus tits you're a fucking military crew, on a fucking dangerous mission. Pull your head out of your ass and do what the fuck your told. Welcome to the Navy bitch

Starfleet isn't the navy (even if it does use a similar system of ranks), and as the characters constantly remind the audience, its purpose is exploration and science first and foremost, rather than the military element. It is also fairly clear that Starfleet crews are allowed to expect a certain level of openness from their superior officers and even the right to challenge them to a limited degree.

[Wintersdown]

Starfleet isn't the navy (even if it does use a similar system of ranks), and as the characters constantly remind the audience, its purpose is exploration and science first and foremost, rather than the military element. It is also fairly clear that Starfleet crews are allowed to expect a certain level of openness from their superior officers and even the right to challenge them to a limited degree.

True it's all a matter of respect, really. It prevents blindly following what the Captain tells you so you don't put the whole crew at risk or violate Starfleet commands. However, as Charellia said, it is limited. But the higher up you are in the command chain the more you can question whoever's in command at the time. And their mission is peace and diplomacy not war, but they do fight because lots of places are hostile.

[Madiganistan]

Disagree. The grounds for Picard being a necessary inclusion on the team are pretty reasonably established, even if he's far from the most qualified person to lead an infiltration ground mission-- that's why Jellico and others are pretty blunt about the fact that this'd probably be a one-way trip.

I must have missed that

I can't remember the finer details, but the weapon the Cardassians were supposedly building was some sort of rare bio-whatever Picard had played an integral role in discovering on a three-man team, the other two of which were otherwise incapacitated.

Ugh I'm watching chain of command. The Crew are all pissing me off. Like Jesus tits you're a fucking military crew, on a fucking dangerous mission. Pull your head out of your ass and do what the fuck your told. Welcome to the Navy bitch

Starfleet isn't the navy (even if it does use a similar system of ranks), and as the characters constantly remind the audience, its purpose is exploration and science first and foremost, rather than the military element. It is also fairly clear that Starfleet crews are allowed to expect a certain level of openness from their superior officers and even the right to challenge them to a limited degree.

Absolutely, but the challenges LaForge, Riker, and others make to Jellico literally amount to "but we're tired."

Totally could've been appropriate to question such a drastic change of style of this had been a run-of-the-mill command transition, given that the Enterprise effectively functions as a small, mobile city. But again:

their reaction would be one thing if Jellico had been hiding everything and giving no explanation whatsoever for uncharacteristically weighty demands the way the Picard clone did in "Allegiance," but the senior staff are well aware of the fact that they're on the precipice of open war.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Oh thank God Moriarty is back

[Ameriganastan]

Oh thank God Moriarty is back

Weird he never asks what happened to Pulaski, considering how much time they spent together.

[Madiganistan]

Oh thank God Moriarty is back

Literally my favorite minor character in all of TNG.
It really says a lot to Daniel Davis's acting ability when a character who only shows up in like two or three episodes can be that memorable.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Ugh that made my head hurt

[New haven america]

Yeah the arguments been made to death

There doesn't even need to be an argument-- just point that Journey's End is literally the exact same plot, except Picard is written consistent with his established character and Insurrection replaced the interesting moral dilemma between him and the Indian chieftain with the most awkward romance in cinematic history. Until Attack of the Clones came around, of course.

I find that it's generally just a good idea to pretend that the TNG movies aren't canon; they completely contradict everything that's been established about both the Star Trek universe and the identities of the main characters (most consequentially Picard, of course). Star Trek's one case where a comprehensive re-imagining actually created a better moviegoing experience than anything released after 1994-- at least the rebooted series incorporated the "alternate timeline" element which, while lazy and perhaps could've been more effectively executed, provides *some* sort of explanation for seeming contradictions in semantics and character.

So you choose to believe something truly great like First Contact doesn't exist, but things like The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier do...?