Of interest I did not discover the show until it's 2nd or 3rd season. When I finally got to seeing reruns they did not bother me as inherently inferior. I was already
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Star Trek: Alpha to Delta Quadrants & Everything In Between
- Thread starter Scepticalscribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL, I hear ya!Of interest I did not discover the show until it's 2nd or 3rd season. When I finally got to seeing reruns they did not bother me as inherently inferior. I was already acclimated.
The show really only hits its stride in its third season, to my mind.
But, as @Huntn, below, has remarked, I didn't see the first series either - indeed, I resisted watching it, as I deplore remakes, and had a silly but strong allegiance to the original Star Trek.
So, I didn't get to see it until well into its run, and then, subsequently watching the easier episodes was not an issue.
Of interest I did not discover the show until it's 2nd or 3rd season. When I finally got to seeing reruns they did not bother me as inherently inferior. I was already acclimated.
Last edited:
The decision to eliminate Number One was taken during planning for the second pilot episode. This gave Gene a second chance that was apparently unprecedented in the TV industry, so it's likely that Gene was mindful of pushing back too much against test audience reactions, knowing he wouldn't get a third shot. Interestingly, though, NBC also asked Gene to drop Spock's character. He didn't give in on this point because he felt that having at least one non-human on board was essential. NBC reluctantly agreed, but asked him to keep Spock "in the background." After about eight episodes had aired, Gene was summoned by an NBC exec, who complained that Spock wasn't being shown enough given that the character was so popular. Go figure.
Some stories about studios meddling in their shows illustrates frequently that creative juices exist within the creators, not those holding the purse strings.
Honestly, I think Number One could have been a popular character as well if she was given the chance. I seriously think that the NBC test audiences didn't reflect who actually ended up watching the show. But that's probably all hindsight. Also, as much as I loved Jonathan Frakes' Will Riker character, I kinda wish Gene had brought back the idea of a female "Number One."
Additionally, I remember being disappointed that Riker didn't get a command after Best of Both Worlds. I didn't care much for the Shelby character, but having a female first officer would have been a great addition to the show and I think if Rick Berman and the writers really tried, they could have found a way to keep both Patrick Stewart and Jonathan Frakes on the show while adding a female first officer. Maybe promoting Picard to a Field Admiral, Riker to Captain and having Enterprise be Picard's flagship. I think that would have made things very interesting (particularly during the 4th season Klingon political story arch).
[doublepost=1496867532][/doublepost]
Oh, I completely understand. I was 10 when TNG came out and that was a point in my life where I was excited for anything Star Trek. Voyage Home was the first of the ST moves I got to see in the theater and, IIRC, had a preview of TNG when it came out on home video. I was excited about the idea of a new original series.
However, I did NOT like the more recent JJ Abrams reboots at all. I found ST 11 (JJ's first outing) tolerable, but it went progressively downhill from there. I didn't care for the dark theme or whitewashing Kahn. When I saw the movie Interstellar, a movie that I felt had one of the most positive visions of the future I've seen in a long time (admittedly couched in a dystopic theme), I took note of two things: 1) Interstellar beat out ST: Into Darkness considerably in the box office, which meant there was a hunger for something more positive, and 2) maybe Christopher Nolan would have been a better steward for the Star Trek vision than JJ.
I was introduced to both Voyager and TNG through TV, so I didn't see episodes in order and started on later seasons. That might be part of why it's so easy for me to get past bad first seasons.
Similarly, I couldn't get anywhere with Enterprise. Maybe it would've been different if I started on the last season.
[doublepost=1496873292][/doublepost]
When I first watched JJ Abram's Star Trek, I told people "It was like I ordered a steak and got an amazing pork chop. This isn't bad, it's just not what the name on the menu says..."
I liked the movies as standalone and could even forgive it being different for a one off. After all, ST8 (First Contact) is basically an action movie, and I still enjoyed it. But the blatant disregard for universe rules irritated me.
The second Abrams Star Trek dialed all of that up to 11. It was a generic action movie. The underwear scene was random. Almost all of the imagery was out of place. (Spock running and acting as a superhero?) The Klingons had no heart and looked weird. And laws of the universe were violated left and right- warping to Qo'nos in minutes from Earth completely broke my suspension of disbelief. This isn't how Star Trek works. It violates the premises of most of the previous movies.
Still haven't seen the third one yet, have been meaning to...
But, as I have written elsewhere (including on this thread), I don't believe that any of the movies - that is any of them, - even the best of them and some of them weren't bad, a few were actually good, but none, not one, were outstanding - despite bloated budgets, endless action, and stunning CGI possibilities - come anywhere near the best of the individual episodes (or, two-parters) in some of the respective series'.
This was because the best episodes told a story, a story that had a narrative, that is, a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end, real characters, character development, characters reacting to and reacting against each other - stress and tension - sometimes, yes, action - and , sometimes, yes, antagonists - but they, too were given credibility and backstories and histories - and eventually - some form of (often gloriously imperfect) resolution.
Too many movies mistake CGI, and action, for plot, narrative, intelligent script, and character development.
Give me "The Inner Light", or "Yesterday's Enterprise" or "The Best of Both Worlds" (Part 1 & 2 and "Family" which form a powerful trilogy that is without parallel for compelling narrative, action, character development, script, and credible outcomes), over any and all of the movies.
True. The most successful execs recognize and hire talented people and let them work with just the right amount of fiscal and creative oversight. I've found that this works in other areas, too. Sometimes it's preferable to let people one supervises to make and learn from mistakes, as long as the adverse consequences aren't dire.
Honestly? I'd take Star Trek 6 (Undiscovered Country) over "Yesterday's Enterprise" any day. Each character in ST6 gets explored more and the story is about Kirk's flaws and has an overarching theme of prejudice, whereas everyone in "Yesterday's Enterprise" is quick to accept sacrificing themselves on Guinan's divinations.
Yes, really.
What made "Yesterday's Enterprise" so compelling was how the familiar characters remained themselves yet were somehow transformed as the strains of fighting an endless and unwinnable war told on them.
In his own STNG world, Jean-Luc Picard was normally sane, civilised, cultured, courteous, highly intelligent, concerned about his crew, intellectually curious and unusually open-minded, and it was clear he was still all those things here; but also here, in this different world, while you saw how all of these qualities remained with him, but, yet tellingly, they were directed to an end in the service of another world - that of war to the death.
Likewise, the others, their characters hadn't changed - but the world and environment in which they operated - which was not peaceful exploration and mutually beneficial trade treaties but war to the death with extermination or slavery the price of defeat - had been transformed beyond all recognition; the episode allowed us to see this, too, in other ways: Thus, the lighting, (stark and highly contrasted), uniforms (a bit more obviously militarised), tense urgency of their movements and speech as they walked - or moved - from room to room - all contributed to the sense of a world at war.
The plot, too, was excellent and the tension throughout palpable.
What made it so good was how credible (if impossible) they managed to make that alternative world. Absolutely gripping. And, as always, Patrick Stewart was superb.
Last edited:
I'm a latecomer to this thread. Well done @Scepticalscribe for starting it.
I'd like to deal with a couple of things.
Firstly, I agree with @Scepticalscribe that Patrick Stewart's portrayal of Picard was essential to the franchise's re-birth back in the 80s. He gave the character an authenticity that bolstered some of the weaker elements of the first few series, not least of which were the shiny uniforms the cast wore in Series 1. I am not a fan of Jonathan Frakes as an actor in ST, although I think he did a good job directing some of the later movies. I'm afraid I think he was also a weaker element of the show, especially in the earlier episodes.
Secondly, I think it took several series for each of the franchises to establish themselves and hit their stride. I agree (again) with @Scepticalscribe and @jdoll021 that TNG took 2 series to establish itself. But I think it really took off in series 3 and 4.
However IMO the other iterations took longer. For me, it was only in series 4 that DS9 and Voyager started to approach the standards set by TNG. In DS9, IIRC this was when the Defiant was introduced. A starship, so that the cast of DS9 could 'trek', and a new villain, the Jem Haddar (I apologise if I've misspelled that) so that they could have more 'dangerous' story arcs. In Voyager, it was the introduction of 7 of 9, and a slightly darker tone that helped take it's writing to another level.
I think it was @jdoll021 who queried the ending of Voyager. It ended with them returning home, but with a lot of loose ends. IIRC, the network decided quite late in the series production not to make another one. The writers needed to decide how to end it, decided they should get home, but didn't have time or episodes to spare to deal with the loose ends. Not the writers fault, or a failing of the series, in my view.
Thirdly, Enterprise. This was cancelled after it's fourth series. I think it gets a raw deal when the various iterations are discussed. It was cancelled just as it was getting good, and IMO it was always the 4th, 5th, 6th series that set the standard we remember them by. IIRC, it was another disappointing network decision. It was regarded as expensive, and not as popular as DS9 or Voyager had been. This was also the TV era (late 90s, early 00s?) when 'reality' TV was very popular, and incredibly cheap to make. IIRC there was also a view that there wasn't a market for SF TV shows at that time. The network was clearly wrong about that, because as they cancelled it another company was investing thousands and thousands in Battlestar Galactica which was a smash hit, and brilliantly acted and written (I think Battlestar Galactica is the best SF TV series ever made. Sorry TNG and Firefly fans).
I grew to like Bakula as Archer, but he carried a lot of baggage from his time as the lead in Quantum Leap. He may have been better received with a longer break between franchises. IMO It's almost the opposite of the Patrick Stewart effect on TNG. I suspect that with another actor the iteration would have done better.
Lastly, on the movies versus the double-episodes debate, as I have said before, these are not fair comparisons. A movie has to be a self-contained story accessible to fans and newbies alike. Double or triple episode story arcs in a well established series don't have these constraints. The audience already knows the characters, and the universe. They understand each character's history and personality. Good writers and a good cast can get on with great story telling from start to finish, and in TNG, and the later series they did just that. I think one of the reasons many of the fans were disappointed with some of the movies was that the double-episode story arcs were so good. Looked at objectively, I do think there are good ST movies, not least of which is First Contact.
I'd like to deal with a couple of things.
Firstly, I agree with @Scepticalscribe that Patrick Stewart's portrayal of Picard was essential to the franchise's re-birth back in the 80s. He gave the character an authenticity that bolstered some of the weaker elements of the first few series, not least of which were the shiny uniforms the cast wore in Series 1. I am not a fan of Jonathan Frakes as an actor in ST, although I think he did a good job directing some of the later movies. I'm afraid I think he was also a weaker element of the show, especially in the earlier episodes.
Secondly, I think it took several series for each of the franchises to establish themselves and hit their stride. I agree (again) with @Scepticalscribe and @jdoll021 that TNG took 2 series to establish itself. But I think it really took off in series 3 and 4.
However IMO the other iterations took longer. For me, it was only in series 4 that DS9 and Voyager started to approach the standards set by TNG. In DS9, IIRC this was when the Defiant was introduced. A starship, so that the cast of DS9 could 'trek', and a new villain, the Jem Haddar (I apologise if I've misspelled that) so that they could have more 'dangerous' story arcs. In Voyager, it was the introduction of 7 of 9, and a slightly darker tone that helped take it's writing to another level.
I think it was @jdoll021 who queried the ending of Voyager. It ended with them returning home, but with a lot of loose ends. IIRC, the network decided quite late in the series production not to make another one. The writers needed to decide how to end it, decided they should get home, but didn't have time or episodes to spare to deal with the loose ends. Not the writers fault, or a failing of the series, in my view.
Thirdly, Enterprise. This was cancelled after it's fourth series. I think it gets a raw deal when the various iterations are discussed. It was cancelled just as it was getting good, and IMO it was always the 4th, 5th, 6th series that set the standard we remember them by. IIRC, it was another disappointing network decision. It was regarded as expensive, and not as popular as DS9 or Voyager had been. This was also the TV era (late 90s, early 00s?) when 'reality' TV was very popular, and incredibly cheap to make. IIRC there was also a view that there wasn't a market for SF TV shows at that time. The network was clearly wrong about that, because as they cancelled it another company was investing thousands and thousands in Battlestar Galactica which was a smash hit, and brilliantly acted and written (I think Battlestar Galactica is the best SF TV series ever made. Sorry TNG and Firefly fans).
I grew to like Bakula as Archer, but he carried a lot of baggage from his time as the lead in Quantum Leap. He may have been better received with a longer break between franchises. IMO It's almost the opposite of the Patrick Stewart effect on TNG. I suspect that with another actor the iteration would have done better.
Lastly, on the movies versus the double-episodes debate, as I have said before, these are not fair comparisons. A movie has to be a self-contained story accessible to fans and newbies alike. Double or triple episode story arcs in a well established series don't have these constraints. The audience already knows the characters, and the universe. They understand each character's history and personality. Good writers and a good cast can get on with great story telling from start to finish, and in TNG, and the later series they did just that. I think one of the reasons many of the fans were disappointed with some of the movies was that the double-episode story arcs were so good. Looked at objectively, I do think there are good ST movies, not least of which is First Contact.
Last edited:
If I had a beef against TNG then it would be the lack of character development of non-major characters. That and Wesley being too Mary Sue.
Guinan had the potential to be a very interesting character in the same vein as Elim Garak. She has all kinds of skills (she bested Worf at target practice (TNG: Redemption), Picard came to her for counselling instead of Troi, she might be a better engineer than Geordi
) yet she's a lowly bartender. Guinan was just a bartender. Right. Garak was just a tailor.I think Guinan is a temporal agent from the 29th century, sent to keep Picard from screwing up the timeline like Kirk had a habit of doing. She was sent to 19th century Earth to make sure Data gets decapitated so it can be reattached to future headless Data (TNG: Time's Arrow). She had "some dealings" with Q in the 22nd century. Q called her an Imp, possible because he knows she doesn't exists during the time she shouldn't.
(TNG: Q Who) She manipulated the crew into sending Enterprise-C back to it's time. (TNG: Yesterday's Enterprise). Data speculated that her species could detect alternate time lines. I ain't buy it. She's a temporal agent who's mission is to protect 29th century history.Well, it would have made her more interesting than plain ol' Guinan.
Random Star Trek chat:
I just had an argument at a bar the other night with someone about our favorite Star Trek series. TNG is my favorite, because of its overall optimistic tone and emphasis on exploration. Patrick Stewart is also by far the most distingushed actor to play a leading role in Star Trek. His gravitas is a major factor in the show's success. My drinking companion preferred DS9 because it is more serialized than episodic, and deals with what he considers a more realistic depiction of the future - war, terrorism, the potential failure of the Federation project.
I still love ToS, even if parts of it betray the era in which it was made. Voyager has some good characters and stories, though it's not a standout (and I can't stand Kes...she's OK in the beginning and not Wesley levels of bad, but their attemtpt to develop her character did not succeed. Love the doctor and Seven though, and Janeway is a great captain). Enterprise is the weakest; it has some strong points, but I feel that the Archer character was badly miscast, and the writers did odd things with T'Pol's character. The "temporal cold war" plot arc is gimmicky and the title theme was intolerably awful. Though the CG was excellent, providing us with the best special effects in a Star trek TV show to date.
If Star Trek has one recurring weakness for me, it is an over-reliance on time travel episodes. Some are excellent, but it seems that any time they run out of ideas they resort to some sort of "temporal anomaly " and presto! we have an episode!
Also, the mirror universe episode in ToS is one of my all-time favorites, but I got bored with it in DS9 and the ENT continuation is very ho-hum.
Hoping the new series will be good, but I'm not going to sign up to some new third-rate streaming service just to watch it.
I just had an argument at a bar the other night with someone about our favorite Star Trek series. TNG is my favorite, because of its overall optimistic tone and emphasis on exploration. Patrick Stewart is also by far the most distingushed actor to play a leading role in Star Trek. His gravitas is a major factor in the show's success. My drinking companion preferred DS9 because it is more serialized than episodic, and deals with what he considers a more realistic depiction of the future - war, terrorism, the potential failure of the Federation project.
I still love ToS, even if parts of it betray the era in which it was made. Voyager has some good characters and stories, though it's not a standout (and I can't stand Kes...she's OK in the beginning and not Wesley levels of bad, but their attemtpt to develop her character did not succeed. Love the doctor and Seven though, and Janeway is a great captain). Enterprise is the weakest; it has some strong points, but I feel that the Archer character was badly miscast, and the writers did odd things with T'Pol's character. The "temporal cold war" plot arc is gimmicky and the title theme was intolerably awful. Though the CG was excellent, providing us with the best special effects in a Star trek TV show to date.
If Star Trek has one recurring weakness for me, it is an over-reliance on time travel episodes. Some are excellent, but it seems that any time they run out of ideas they resort to some sort of "temporal anomaly " and presto! we have an episode!
Also, the mirror universe episode in ToS is one of my all-time favorites, but I got bored with it in DS9 and the ENT continuation is very ho-hum.
Hoping the new series will be good, but I'm not going to sign up to some new third-rate streaming service just to watch it.
Last edited:
Nitpicking a little: the Defiant was introduced in the first episode of season 3, following the spectacular introduction of the Jem'Hadar in the last episode of season 2 where a Jem'hadar crew rammed a Galaxy class ship
Agreed. Yesterday's Enterprise is one of my all time favorite episode of any TV series. Just a superb piece of science fiction.
I agree with your whole post with surprising accuracy, but holy **** I just wanted to highlight this part. Quite right. Yikes.
Agree with both @mobilehaathi and @Lord Blackadder about the theme music of Enterprise - absolutely awful.
And, yes, along with @Lord Blackadder, I have long been of the opinion that the character of Captain Archer was miscast, (Scott Bakula) for simply didn't 'work' for me as a credible captain. Moreover, most of the rest of the cast (the bridge crew) were shamefully under-utilised.
Yes, I do agree I never liked the theme music to Enterprise but I didn't find Archer to be "less than" some of the other Captains. I think they each came with their own foibles as well as how the story lines and dialogues may handicap them. I have watched all of the ST shows and I don't recall ever not having some frustrations with each yet, each week I watched without missing an episode.
Just for fun, for those that didn't like S.B. as Archer, who might you see that would have been a better fit or which actor today would have been if they were the proper age back then?
*Mumbles something about always singing along on Enterprises theme in the first couple of seasons....*
I liked Archer. And in general I liked Enterprise, but I did feel that their plotlines were always WAY over the top. They took the time travel and badly CGI'd aliens to a whole new level, which they could easily have solved in other ways IMHO.
I liked Archer. And in general I liked Enterprise, but I did feel that their plotlines were always WAY over the top. They took the time travel and badly CGI'd aliens to a whole new level, which they could easily have solved in other ways IMHO.
It's interesting to speculate where TOS would have gone—other than "where no man has gone before"—had it not been canceled. NBC axed the series after two years, but only relented after a letter-writing campaign. I've always thought that the third season was the weakest and the first was the strongest.
I suspect that TNG represented the Star Trek that Gene had wanted to make originally, but couldn't because of limited production resources and constraints on what NBC execs and 1960s audiences would accept.
I agree about Patrick Stewart's portrayal of Picard, still my favorite captain. I would have followed his orders unhesitatingly, and once almost told him so personally.
Overall I just found Bakula's Archer irritating. He was too much like Shatner's Kirk in terms of his impetuosity, but what worked in the '60s doesn't work in the 21st century.
Agreed.
It is a kind of uncomplicated, clichéd interpretation of a certain type of what is thought to be classic 'male' leadership (as conceived by TV and cinema).
Moreover, I thought the actor weak, and the character poorly conceived and written. Worse, few of the other characters - with the possible exception of T'Pol - and Charles Tucker - were all that well written, and weren't fully developed - leaving Scott Bakula as Captain Archer to carry more of the weight of the show, a task for which he wasn't especially well equipped.
I thought Jolene Blalock played T'Pol very well, but they must have breast augmentation surgery on Vulcan (seems illogical?) and the director sure wanted us to know all about it. There is nothing wrong with exploring T'Pol's romantic experiences, but I feel like the writers and director went for cheap thrills rather than a more highbrow approach. If you try to compete with cable channels for titillation, you will lose every time.
Agreed.
While I had no quarrel with the idea of a relationship with Charles Tucker per se - I wasn't crazy at the completely clichéd (and yes, sexist) way some of it was portrayed. The character of T'Pol deserved better - and yes, agreed, I thought the actress (Jolene Blalock) excellent.
That is the kind of story - especially given what we know of Vulcan culture - that is best told in a subtle tone, and is all the more powerful for that.