 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd agree with others that, yes, Season 3 is where TNG really began to establish itself. On the whole the series is great, albeit slightly dated. (Some episodes have fared worse than others in this regard. But that's to be expected from a 25-year-old show.) If you do start to watch it, I would still recommend watching the first two seasons at some point as there are some stories that are related to epsodes later in the show's run. Also, the Blu-ray releases from CBS are top-notch. Fingers crossed that DEEP SPACE NINE isn't far behind....
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is by far the best Star Trek show.
Yes, DEEP SPACE NINE is the best STAR TREK show! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
How is this show regarded in retrospect? Does it hold up, or, given its launch in that most dreaded of decades, the 1980s, is it dated?
Depends on who you ask. If you ask a Trekkie, it holds up very well.
As for "dated", well, if you're expecting it to look like anything from the last decade, you'll be disappointed, but know it doesn't become ridicuously dated like some 1970's sci-fi show.
You're talking about a series with real model ships, special effects which were often uniquely made and involved real everyday items, as opposed to CGI-ing it (for a good part), including smoke effects, glitter stars in water (transporter effect), etc. Despite being from before other Trek spin-off shows, it's effects don't look as dated as those in D.S.9. and Voyager which looked like cheap CGI computer renderings.
The most important things are that not all the technology has been dated yet (like TOS tech, for the most part), but rather that the social commentary storylines are still relevent. Even the stand alone episodes yield much goodness ("The Inner Light" and "Darmok", anybody?).
And the show wasn't entirely just episode-to-episode -- there was some vague archs (like the Borg and Data's brother), and some plot & character continuity. It has it's flaws like any other show.
The real problems lie in the first two seasons: cheesey sets (trying to be too much TOS but in a modern way), cluncky dialogue (there's some Godawful dialogue in there), bad directing which led to bad acting, some terrible scripts, and the budget must not have been there to get the bigger orchestra that we heard in later seasons (sometimes it worked, other times you cringed at the synth trumpet).
Are some seasons better than others, and if so, which are the seasons to start with? Or do you really need to watch the show in chronological order, top to bottom?
Well, as I said, there is some continuity, so you take your chances if you watch it out of order.
I'd say the best seasons were from three to six. You get great stuff like "Yesterday's Enterprise", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Inner Light", "Who Watches the Watchers", and more.
Does LaVar Burton wear those stupid sunglasses through the whole show, or does he ever get to take them off?
It was hairband, as I recall.
He wears it because his character was born blind (though one episode contradicts that saying he lost his vision later).
Two or three times onscreen we get the explination of why he chooses it as opposed to surgery. There's really no cure for that, even in the 24 century.
Plus, it makes him look COOL. Get over it. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 28, 2013 - 2:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Gary S.
(Member)
|
Onya, you might as well watch them in order. During the course of the series, there was a tremendous amount of character development and it seems only proper to see it all as it unfolds in a chronological fashion.
While it is true that the first 2 seasons are somewhat shaky (the 2nd perhaps less so), some of my favorite episodes are found there ("Conspiracy", "Measure Of A Man", and "A Matter Of Honor" among others). Also (and to the show's benefit), seasons 1 & 2 do not have stories that depended on multi-episode plot arcs or end-of-season cliffhangers. Most of the time I want my TNG stories to be told in one quick, clean shot, without them being dependent upon another episode from which to make sense.
You beat me to it. I was going to mention Measure Of A Man and Matter of Honor as among the reasons to watch the earlier seasons. Besides without Encounter at Farpoint one misses the beginning of the whole "Q" thing played with relish by John DeLancie. One would also miss Tasha Yar, thus diminishing her return in Yesterday's Enterprise.
True one could do without some of the Wesley Crusher saves the ship episodes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for these replies.
What is the show - and what is the season - where there are these different "reality bubbles" that result in increasingly smaller crews, but no one is aware because it's as if it had always been that way?
You're welcome! 
It sounds as if you're describing Season 4's episode, "Remember Me." I just re-watched it and I enjoyed it...one of the better Dr Crusher episodes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 30, 2013 - 10:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dyfrynt
(Member)
|
Well my name for the series is Star Trek the Next Generalization, so I guess you can tell where I am coming from! That being said a lot of love for this series is often a matter of your age. Those of us who grew up with TOS as our Star Trek, well it is our Star Trek. Those whose formative years were during the Next Gen times - that is their Star Trek.
TOS was made when being an individual was considered very important. Don't follow the crowd. Be yourself, etc. A lot of that was bogus of course, but a lot was true too. Kirk and crew were a team comprised of individuals.
Next Gen came along during the play nice to get along times of corporate America. So the Starship Hilton, err, Enterprise focused on the team. Individuality was out. Teamwork was paramount (HaHa. I made a funny!).
What really killed Next Gen for me was an older Roddenberry deciding that 24th century humans were just so darn advanced that they managed to never have conflict amongst themselves. Considering that character conflict is one of the primary hallmarks of good entertainment, Roddenberry hamstrung Next Gen disastrously with this decision.
The story I like to tell comparing the two series is this:
A Klingon comes up to Picard and growls "Fight or die!" Picard shouts "Everyone to the conference room". He then gets the opinions of the entire bridge crew and balances all those opinions. The consensus is "Deck the idiot". Picard comes back out, but the Klingon is long gone.
Same situation with Kirk. "Fight or die!" Kirk punches the Klingon's lights out. Spock lifts an eyebrow. McCoy thumps Kirk on the shoulder. They get on with their business.
As silly as that analogy is, it is actually backed up by fact in that they "Kirked up" Picard in the Star Trek Next Gen Borg movie. This was a Picard we had never seen before. Or since for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i hate that holideck crap!*
a cheap way to make an ep when the writer's can't think of anything new>
i felt the same way about some of ST:TOS. to save money they wrote scripts around pre-existing sets: Ancient Rome, the wild west, Depressioon era NYC etc
brm
it isn't even scientifically credible. Virtual reality & holograms do not have substance so you cant ride a horse etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
