As a counterpoint though, the first season of TOS wasn't nearly as bad. And I'm a guy who grew up in the 80s watching TNG long before I ever saw much TOS.
I thought it had to do with Gene Roddenberry wanting to keep a tight grip on creative control of TNG and the franchise, and his infamous rule where there was to be no interpersonal conflict between the main characters because he believed that humans in the 24th century evolved past that, and they all get along and were perfect. Which had the writers be expected to write drama with no conflict and adhere to his optimistic vision of humanity's enlightened future, which was detrimental to the storytelling due to a lack of dramatic possibilities.
Right. All conflict came from outside the Enterprise. The crew just react to things in they way they're suppose to. It's good for classic episodic storyteling, because the characters never change and always act as their character is suppose to. I think it was once Michael Pillar became a story editor they started having stories where the crew was more involved or had connection to the story, which made for way better storytelling. The characters don't really evolve, but we get a bit more insight into them to get us to care about the crew more.
One step deeper. Limitations cause creativity. Trying to have a bunch of writers spin Gene's ideas into stories, becomes interesting. If you give Gene unlimited room to dictate story. You get the TMP novel. Which is very horny if you haven't read it. And you can't do that on TV for a start. If the writers have total freedom, you get Discovery and Picard. You need a balance. Also, honestly, TNG got good because the cast became friends. Frakes even started directing. They seem like a real crew later on... Because they were.
Yeah. Every time someone mentions that new Trek isn't Roddenberry's Trek, I point out what they think is Roddenberry's Trek is very different than what Roddenberry actually wanted.
I think this is overblown. There was character conflict in the 1960s version; it starts with Kirk / Spock / McCoy, and later they give voice to Scotty and his love of the ship (which leads to him getting his crew in trouble, and Tribbles).
Yes, you nailed it. The crew are caricatures rather than characters, perfect starfleet officers and any character had to come from outside the ship. If the Original crew acted like the season 1 TNG crew you would never get the banter between Bones and Spock. I think TNG would have got cancelled just like the original series, if Gene Roddenberry had lived and still had control after 2 or 3 seasons.
Ensemble casts need time to gel, on the page at least if not during screenings. Either the writers nail it in season one ("Firefly") or they become better writers ("Firefly" was not Whedon's first series).
The answer is Gene Roddenberry. Best thing that happened to both the TOS movie series and TNG was him not being able to strangle it with his out-of-touch script re-writing and arbitrary rules on what Star Trek is. There's a reason that absolutely no Gene Roddenberry heavy hour of TNG is well remembered (you can tell the ones he re-wrote, he's got a very clear voice). I give him thanks for his casting - he smashed it out of the park there - but that should have been the end of his involvement with the show. Rick Berman and Michael Piller are the reason that the TNG era became peak Trek. And not forgetting, Melissa Snodgrass, Hans Beimler, Richard Manning, Jeri Taylor, Ronald Moore, Ira Steven Behr, Robert Wolfe, Brannon Braga and many others whose names we should be shouting from rooftops, instead of erasing their contributions because of Gene's self-mythology.
For me, the first truly great episode of ST:TNG was season 2's "A Matter Of Honor." As part of an officer exchange program, Riker serves aboard a Klingon ship. Plenty of great character moments to hold the viewer's interest.
I think it's pretty obvious that the passive nature of the characters you correctly pointed out was the direct result of the Rodenberry edict that there could be no internal conflict between the regular characters and all conflict had to come from outside. So this forced the stories to always be about the characters reacting to something forced upon them from outside, and no internal strife between them. Once Rodenberry was pushed upstairs, and the writers could actually write compelling stories about compelling characters who actually drive the story, ST began to improve.
In fairness there is sttill a lot of bad or just dull episodes later. When TNG works it has great episodes which stick in people's minds while a lot of the rest is just forgotten.
I love Rodenberry's edict about no internal conflict between the regular characters. It forced the writers to make stories about bigger things than petty squabbles or the perpetual "will they / won't they" relationships seen on almost every other show. The issue is that many writers didn't know how to write without that conflict among the cast. Once they figured that out the show got better and tackled deeper things. In a sense, Rodenberry removed a crutch that writers had become reliant on - but didn't really need. It just took them time to adapt.
That's what Star Trek is supposed to be. It's about characters exploring the unknown reacting to what they find. It's not a soap opera where characters bicker amongst themselves. That would get old quick.
The Picard character came without the optional spine installed. They found one in the writers room during the break before season two and installed it. The show improved immensely after that.
@@mjjoe76Frakes found the beard. He grew it in the hiatus between Season 1 and 2. Got too many comments about "babyface" Riker. Grew the beard to make himself look older. Like Patrick's bald head, Roddenberry suddenly liked it.
Season 1 of TNG sucks because Gene Roddenberry wasn't as good as people like to remember. It was no accident that the crew had no character. That was a feature, not a bug. According to Roddenberry, the Enterprise was supposed to represent the pinnacle of humanity, where humans had grown beyond their more baser traits... AKA the exact thing that gives people character. So instead of being interesting, the Enterprise crew were simply passive observers because that was the enlightened thing to do. You can't have any of that pesky individuality, which leads to differing opinions and conflict.
Roddenberry is the reason Trek has endured for as long as it has. He kept it from becoming generic schlock people would have forgotten about decades ago. The crew being "passive observers" is what made the original show the hit that it became. The show was about exploring the unknown, not interpersonal relationships. With that being said, characters in Trek have always had differing opinions. Even in the first season of TNG. But the differing opinions and conflict would revolved around how to solve a problem as opposed to petty squabbles like you see in soap operas. That is how Trek is supposed to be.
Agreed. Gene Roddenberry was good as an ideas guy--painting with a large brush. It's when he wanted to start painting in the details that he was completely out of his element. And it's interesting that all of his 1950s/1960s stuff is very character driven, very much based on interpersonal conflict. But once he got into the 1970s and tried painting details with that big brush--well, it's no surprise that Genesis II or the The Questor Tapes went nowhere.
@@AbrasiousProductions no. It's likely just a bunch of writers and producers butthurt over Roddenberry not letting them put out generic schlock. The same kind of generic schlock that's been coming out in recent years. Roddenberry wanted Trek to be meaningful. Furthermore, it's easy for the living to blame the dead being as the dead can't tell their side of the story.
@@DeepDeepSpace hmm, I trust you, it seems many heroes are undervalued in their time, we see it happening right now with trump, the man nearly died multiple times for this country and there's still people demonizing him for falsified shit. thanks for clearing my mind dude✌
I was 14 when TNG came out, and I remember feeling a little let down by the 1st season. However, there was pretty much no other quality sci-fi on TV at the time, so I was willing to give it a lot of slack. And when I say TNG S1 was "quality sci-fi", I simply mean sci-fi that took itself seriously and was sincere, not a comedy show or obviously low-budget series like pretty much everything else sci-fi on TV at the time. TNG S1 wasn't the highest quality in relation to what the show grew into, but was very high quality in terms of budget and seriousness, as well having many high quality ideas for many of its episodes. Fans appreciated the show being a serious show for more mature-minded people and not a generic cash-grab. But I agree 100% with the thesis of this video: the 1st season was not great. However, it was just good enough for everyone to see its potential, and thankfully it was given a chance to become successful.
It helped a ton that it was obviously high budget. Imagine if it had been a low budget show with the bad writing of season 1. It would've been cancelled mid-season 1.
I do think that people talking about the first two seasons don't often take into consideration the context of the time, what else was being screened at that time and the fact that we had a lot less choice of entertainment then.
The main lesson is "never let the old man try to save money by flushing his pile of old scripts into your first season." Season 1 was filmed largely using scripts created for earlier Trek reboot attempts which Roddenberry had on file (and already paid for), and his writing team had to rewrite those scripts for this set of characters without incurring co-author credit (which Rodenberry would have to pay them for beyond being on-staff writers). There were a few scripts left for Season 2, especially the biggest clunkers, but most of that old crap had migrated out of Rodenberry's file and he needed new work from his own writing crew, who actually knew their characters and how they should react. Gene was a lot of things, but he was also a cheap bastard about paying writers.
He also wrote lyrics for Courage's Star Trek theme so that he could get extra money as a "co-writer" of the theme song though it was played without lyrics.
Addendum to my previous comment. I think you can get a pretty good full 26 episode season when you combine the best of season 1 and 2... 01. ENCOUNTER AT FARPOINT 02. WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE 03. THE BATTLE 04. HIDE AND Q 05. THE BIG GOODBYE 06. DATALORE 07. 11001001 08. HOME SOIL 09. COMING OF AGE 10. HEART OF GLORY 11. THE ARSENAL OF FREEDOM 12. SKIN OF EVIL 13. CONSPIRACY 14. THE NEUTRAL ZONE 15. WHERE SILENCE HAS LEASE 16. ELEMENTARY DEAR DATA 17. A MATTER OF HONOR 18. THE MEASURE OF A MAN 19. CONTAGION 20. TIME SQUARED 21. THE ICARUS FACTOR 22. PEN PALS 23. SAMARITAN SNARE 24. THE EMISSARY 25. PEAK PERFORMANCE 26. Q WHO The only mid episodes are The Neutral Zone and Skin of Evil, but both are essential to learn about the death of Tasha and the return of the Romulans. The rest, imo, are either good, very good, or even great.
I love this, my list would be slightly different but we can chalk that up to differences of opinion. I'm also going to rearrange some episodes 1) Encounter at Farpoint 2) Where No One Has Gone Before 3) The Battle 4) The Big Goodbye 5) Datalore 6) 11001001 7) Home Soil 8) Coming of Age 9) Heart of Glory 10) The Naked Now 11) The Arsenal of Freedom 12) Hide and Q 13) Skin of Evil 14) We'll Always Have Paris 15) Conspiracy 16) The Neutral Zone 17) Elementary, Dear Data 18) Loud As A Whisper 19) The Schizoid Man 20) Unnatural Selection 21) A Matter Of Honor 22) The Measure Of A Man 23) The Royale 24) Time Squared 25) The Icarus Factor 26) The Emissary 27) Peak Performance 28) Q Who This would be my list and order. I included a few more season 1 episodes than I would have based on quality alone. I kept Encounter At Farpoint, The Naked Now, Skin of Evil and The Neutral Zone because IMO they are important episodes for later. The Naked Now is mostly just for the Tasha/Data stuff, which you can debate if it's needed. I pushed it later in the season so it could seem more obvious how their characters are affected by the virus. I also moved Hide and Q to right before Tasha's death to try and space out the Q visits as much as possible. Interestingly, our Season 1 list of episodes is almost identical, but we have more differences on what to keep from Season 2. Nothing wrong with your choices, my list is just tailored to my taste. If I had to cut two to get down to 26 episodes, it would probably be The Schizoid Man and The Royale?
@ProxyExpy The Royale is most surreal episode in the whole canon of Trek. I've seen it so many times and can't decide if I absolutely despise it or am entirely fascinated by it.
I am one of the few who LOVES season 1! It's very nostalgic for me. It's fun to watch a show finding it's footing. It's also very reminiscent of the Original Series with the campy, flippant nature of the stories. I was born in 1971. Patrick Stewart was 6 years younger than me in the first season!
This is why I tell people your characters ARE the plot. Every good plot is built around characters actions and interactions due to the scenario they find themselves in. If you can't imagine how a character would interact in the scenario they're in, then they might not work in that particular story.
No... that's just not how authors and writers, write. The story itself was always conceived first, then the writer would have the characters move, show, and tell that story forward. The story makes great characters, while characters make no story, because they are the story, and why would we care about them? You care about Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Darth Vader and classic Star Wars because you're vested in the story and its goals. Most people don't like modern Star Wars because it's not story-centric, but character-centric, and with unlikeable characters.
@@MarkLewis... Writers can write in different ways, some people do the story first and write the characters around it, other people think up of characters and then put them in a story. They make very different types of thing though. But I don't think you can necessarily separate the story and characters. The characters only exist in the plot.
No, this is not always the case. Sometimes it is about the ideas the story is bringing forward. There are many sci-fi books that are about concepts and not about characters.
@ Yes, writers can write in different ways. They can write a story-centric idea, or a character-centric idea. As an example of the 2 (though there are more, but these are the primary ways) writers can write "Old Star Wars" or "New Star Wars". With old SW, we care about Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, and Darth Vader because we are vested in the story and its goals. Most SW fans hate New SW because the characters are the story and the characters are unlikable. For literally millennia writers have written stories first, then have the characters move that story forward, (a method Joseph Campbell has talked about in his books) but modern writers have tried to (literally) flip the script on that successful formula and have the characters be the story. This is why most people hate modern movies, modern (Disney) Star Wars, and pretty much all of Hollywood these days. The writers don't know how to write, and these people, (sadly) are in control of Hollywood.
There's also this issue that even with all the backstory, the actors don't know how these characters should act/react and then us as an audience don't know who these people are, so we can't make a connection to them. One perfect example is "The Naked Now" where they encounter the same mind-altering infection as Kirk and crew did in TOS. A lot of the criticism comes from this being only the second (third with the pilot) episode and we have no basis for how these people are acting when they are intoxicated because we haven't seen them acting normal. I do see the comments here about Roddenberry's involvement and how he was essentially stifling the creation of the characters until season 2, but I can't help but feel that the show being in its infancy didn't help matters any either. Yet, I look at it this way: we wouldn't have had Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country without TMP, so it had to start somewhere.
The writers and actors not knowing the characters in Season one was absolutely part of the problem. The other part IMO was society had changed between 1960s and 1980s and audiences had changed, their tastes had changed, so the stories had to change.
It seems like the more Rodenberry was involved in day to day the worse the shows were. He was good ideas guy. Creating charactera and worlds and such. Not exactly a great story teller/showrunner guy Edit: some people have pointed out its the same thing with George Lucas. I agree with that. Outside of ANH whenever he was more hands on it was worse.
Roddenberry's health was not good at that time. While he had overall control of scripts and the production, he wasn't well enough to write too much himself. His lawyer (if I'm remembering correctly) did a significant amount of re-writing during season 1 instead. I'm open to correction on this, but it was stated on 'Chaos On The Bridge'.
@@CaminoAirya his attorney started sitting in on story meetings and the other writers didn't like it. The attorney would also start making notes to existing scripts written by staff writers.
The main reason is that it was rushed into production on the heels of the unexpectedly large success of ST:IV, and it really didn’t have a lot of development time. Whereas TOS had a normal (for the time) development period, and had all the major pieces in place BEFORE it hit the air, TNG really didn’t have any development time. They just threw some leftover ideas from “Phase 2” together, made it an ensemble instead of a focused-lead show, and slapped it on the air with scripts that would not have managed to make it to air as episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea in the old days. Another major problem was Roddenberry should *not* have been in charge. He was a nightmare to work for/with back in TOS days and on TMP. There’s a very clear reason he was never in charge of another TV show between 1968 and 1987. Bring him in as a consultant, sure, let him write a script now and again, sure, but the man had all of his old bad habbits *plus* he was completely out of touch, and insisted on running a late-80s show as though it was still the 1960s, which was massively different. I mean, imagine trying to do a sitcom in the style of “I Love Lucy” in the age of “Arrested Development.” It wasn’t quite as bad as my example, but he was so functionally out of touch that the show couldn’t do anything but suck. And he had a pathological aversion to anything that gave texture to a story. Love? Money? Politics? Religion? Crime? Culture? Meaning of Life? Nope, none of that. Just a bland Ramada Inn version of the future by a coked-up guy who had no real interest in anything other than his own legend. I remember someone high up in the studio - I can’t remember who - saying that if the show didn’t have “Star Trek” tacked on to the title, it would not have survived its first season.
The ensemble problem is one I encounter with writers often. One, most writers want something generic, and write that, and their brain then can't go any further. So they go, I want a Klingon. Great. We have a Klingon! So now your brain is done because it gave you what you wanted. What you have to do is write a character that is needed, and provides meaningful conflict, and then say, Make him a Klingon. They clearly did not do this. Also, finding enough for a large group to do is rough, unless you move quick. Big Bang and Modern Family's later years show how large casts bog down quickly. Arrested Development season 1-3 however shows how you deal with it. Three times the scenes moving fast. Get plot, get joke, get moving on to the next scene.
(1) Picard was a stuffy character who hated children (2) Riker was a stereotypical womanizer (3) Deana was a helpless, overemotional female, whose only line was, “Captain, I think they’re hiding something.” (4) Geordi didn’t really have any definite job yet. (5) Worf was a growling idiot. (6) Wesley was just an irritating know-it-all teenager. (7) Doctor Crusher was just the over protective mother.
Geordi was supposed to be the blind pilot (ironic, huh?) Worf was supposed to be the first Klongon Starfleet officer, but with no other role Wesley unfortunately slipped into the Marysue role (which appeared in Roddenberry's pile of leftover scripts used for the first season a lot, so they stuck poor Wil Wheaton with that role) You also didn't mention Tasha Yar, who was supposed to be another "groundbreaking" role as a female kick-ass security officer (at a time when women weren't allowed in combat roles in the US military) but otherwise given short shrift. By eliminating her character, they could move Worf into the security role, and give Geordi the one prime role for a Sci-Fi show they needed but didn't have the money for, chief engineer. And I think Deana had the best revenge, because in her challenges for climbing to full Commander, she realized that she had to order Geordi to his death in order to save the ship, and both he and she realized that yes, she would do that if necessary.
@@shantanusaha9746 There wasn't even ging to be an engineering set until Roddenberry wrote a scene in the pilot set in engineering just to get the set made. Worf was the last main character added. The original plan was not use any previously used aliens. Had Denise Crosby not quit, Gates McFadden not gotten herself fired, and Sirtis not become good friends with Majel Barrett, Deanna Troi would've been axed. Sirtis feared that at the time, she'd been written out of some episodes. Years later, Majel confirmed Counselor Troi was on the chopping block, but they kept Troi because they didn't want to lose all the existing female cast members.
Riker does have some character moments in Hide and Q in a whole "power corrupts" story, but even in that episode, stuff mostly happens to the crew and Q is the one driving the episode. I think another problem with Season 1 is the actors didn't have a firm handle on the characters they were portraying, and they mostly come across as stiff. Luckily by Season 2, they were more comfortable in their characters and developed personality. Very interesting video! Just subbed!
Well said I don't think the writers and producers had everything fully in mind and set out beforehand. I was just pointing out Peggy Bundy in the first season of Married With Children was cooking and stuff like that around the house. And Kelly wasn't a dunce. I think it takes a little bit of watching the person play that role to realize the actors strengths in portraying certain aspects that will work and won't work. I do realize that's kind of ironic when we're thinking about this show, because Brett Steiner plays an emotionless unfunny robot yet anybody who has seen him as Bob Wheeler on Night Court knows he is damn f****** funny
I know the early seasons were not the best. However, I treat them like bonus content from a time we can't return to. It's just nice to see the cast I enjoy together.
I never realized how bad much of the first season was until later on because I watched the series out of order. The episode that got me hooked was Season 7, Episode 11 Parallels (the Worf episode). By the time I was able to start TNG chronologically, I had already seen the middle later seasons (3 and above) including the finale. It was jarring to see the differences. The uniforms in season one looked so different without the collars, men wearing skirts, the Engineering officer changing weekly, etc. As a prior casual, I don't think I would have fallen for Star Trek if I saw season 1 first.
I have long maintained that a good character is someone you can easily imagine in any given scenario - you would have a clear concept of how they would behave, what they would do or not do, if they would fit in or stand out, if they would have a good time or not, etc, etc. Because _action_ *IS* _character._
Action AND reason are character, not one alone. Without understanding of why someone is doing something, you don't know anything about their character. A show like Dexter or House lacks character without their backstory because their actions alone show they are just "serial killer" and "asshole doctor". And you can even take this into the real world. You're stripping someone who would otherwise generally be seen as a hero down to "guy who shot someone" the moment you decide the information about the person being shot being about to shoot the "guy who shot somrone's" daughter doesn't matter since that's the reason, not the action taken. Both are 100% necessary for character. 1 action + x reason = character.
What's weird about TNG season 1 is that I CONSTANTLY go back to it because I need reminding that TNG, when it began, freaking sucked. It makes you look at your own work and go "Right. CAN I find anything TNG season 1 in here" and if I do, i pull that out and throw it out the window. There's a strange amount of benefit with TNG season 1 that makes you go "Ah, so things need TIME and focus and a vision that isn't Gene Roddenberrys." And the best kind of fiction to consume to make you a better creative is stuff that's garbage because a) you will go "I can do better than THAT" and b) you WILL be humbled because you WILL spot all the mistakes THEY made and you can stop those errors from happening. And c) You WILL appreciate Jonathan Frakes' beard because he looks naked without one.
I love the first and second season of TNG because its "So bad its good" except Code of Honor, that's really bad. Then again I am a fan of Samurai Cop so...
Well, I'm a Trekker--so that is probably why I don't hate TNG S1! Certainly there were a lot of slow and awkward episodes. But I promise you at the time it was first broadcast the thing that mattered most was 'this is new Trek'. I clearly recall talking to my pal who is a somewhat softer core fan than me and his asking 'Well? What did you think?' after we had just seen 'Encounter at Farpoint' for the first time. I shrugged and said 'Doesn't matter. Its new Star Trek!' and he agreed. We hadn't had a new weekly show since... TAS? So mid-1970's. Of course WoK and VH had been high points from the ToS movies by then, so it hadn't been an entire desert. But to suddenly have a new story every week... It didn't matter how painful some of them were. They were 100% set in the same universe, had the same races and ships that were recognizably starfleet... This was our world. At the end of the day it is hard to explain unless you were there at the time. The quality really didn't seem to matter. It was the affection for the universe that counted. And they are not all universally poor either. Some hold up pretty well--at least when considered alongside other late 1980's SF television content.
Its not, its fine with 10 solid episodes, and rest of season had some ok and some really bad and truly some terrible episodes. It was just warming up with some great setups like introducing android Data, new technology Holodeck, Q, new type of ship and many more. Its fine, not great, but fine
Maybe Gene Roddenberry and the writers couldn't find their footing at the beginning of TNG particularly with the writing and ideas. That seemed to change when The Borg came into TNG and when Gene Roddenberry passed away.
In the first season of Married With children, Peggy was a housewife and would cook and Kelly wasn't a complete airhead she was just a big sister who hated her little brother. The characters evolved into what they became because it made for a way better show. Their characters also became way deeper after the changes. At first they weren't totally sure exactly what they should be but once they got everything set the rest is history. Same thing very much with the Next Generation here, they were still working The Kinks out and figuring out the best way to present each character as to the actor's strength.
@russellharrell2747 I never thought of that, I mean I know they both started in the 80s but I didn't realize it was in the same year cool. As a big fan of Night Court I kind of wish that Star Trek next Generation had started a couple years later, because I would have loved to see Brett Spiner stay on his Bob Wheeler and him and his wife keep running the Newsstand on the show cuz he was so damn funny on that show.
Whenever I go back to season 1, I always forget how much of a nothing character Worf started out as and he ended up being one of the most complex characters in Star Trek.
This. It turns out many of the things we loved about TOS weren't because of Roddenberry but contributions of others: Dorothy Fontana, Gene Coon, John Black, Herb Solow, etc. When he was is sole charge of things, ST:TMP and TNG season 1, things kind of sucked.
When it first came out in 87, my Dad and I actually loved the first season of TNG! In fact, I still love it to this day. The first season for me felt "peaceful" with the way it was depicted on screen, plus Ron Jone's score was straight up pure 80's. I know the first season sucks due to bad writing, but I overall enjoyed the season as I re-watch my VHS-Recordings it over and over again as a little kid. Also note: My Dad recorded all the episodes of TNG (and TOS) and has a system for it: He used two VCRs - one to record the episode as it aired, and the second he use to edited out the commercials. The Series Final, "All Good Things..." is the only episode recorded without editing out the commercials. Overall, we had the entire TNG series recorded on 25 8-hour VHS tapes.
Armin Shimerman, in an interview about Deep Space Nine, said that part of his motivation for playing Quark was to redeem the horrible Ferengi he portrayed in "The Last Outpost". That's the most Star Trek nerd way of looking at it I can think of.
While I was yammering on earlier, I forgot to mention that your insights about season 1 are very good. Thanks for doing that! It’s kind of a common failing of TVSF in the long, lean years between 1970 and 1990. With a few very noteworthy exceptions, space-based SF shows - especially ones that try to have highfalutin’ ideas - tend to have a rather passive cast around which the story happens. Take “The Troubled Spirit” or “Black Sun” from Space:1999 A bunch of stuff happens, and the crew just kind of go through it, then it stops happening and everything is fine. As opposed to the comparatively lowbrow Battlestar Galactica (1978) in which Adama breaks orders and saves humanity, and when Apollo and Starbuck break orders and save Galactica (And hence humanity). Just the actions of the characters hanging around in the fleet are pretty well defined, whether they’re getting ready to go on a recon mission, or playing Triad in their humiliating sports uniforms, or dealing with food shortages. It’s a dumb show, but it’s so much more engaging than Space: 1999 or TNG season 1.
Spock's Brain is often regarded as the worst episode of the original series and of the entire franchise but _Code of Honor_ deserves an Honorable Mention.
STTNG was definitely "trying to find its footing" early on. However, a lot of people forget that "Q" (John DeLancey) was there right from the start. So... BOOM... lots of good stuff in the early days, but at the same time, I'm absolutely certain that the writers were struggling to find a way to keep everything straight, remain consistent, and yet PERMIT THE CHARACTERS TO GROW. And that's just what the actors helped bring about, obviously. Stewart, Spiner, and several of the other well-experienced performers probably pushed for excellent ways to help their characters grow, develop, learn, and so forth. Even the Tasha Yarr arc helped Data and the others to move beyond a huge loss.
TNG is a great example of WHY YOU DON'T CANCEL A SHOW AFTER ONE SEASON ... EVERYBODY! I just saw a series called night sky with jk Simmons and sissy spacek. Amazing. I laughed I cried, I was all about the mystery, the deal with the neighbour. They clearly thought they had another season but no. Barely 10 episodes. The more this happens the less I understand (don't get me started on final space that I first caught here on TH-cam) . All good things.... take time to get good.
I saw many people on YT talk about star trek, but this is next level, and a very good insight of movie making in general. Very good content, subscribed!!
If you look at season 1 through a ToS lens, season 1 is just a bunch of so-so ToS episodes with new characters. Much of sci-fi used to suffer from the original Buck Rogers 1930s series silly teen boy plots later continued with lost in space and finally ToS. TNG had to grow out of its history to boldly go in beyond season 1. Season 2 is better, but it's season 3+ that make the show that people loved. Without season 1 & 2 growing pains, we don't get the good stuff of 3+. Only now, when I re-watch season 1 TNG as a bonus reboot of ToS is it a barely tolerable preamble transition to the real TNG. For non, TNG fans just start them with season 3.
One of the many problems was that they somehow shot the show like TOS. Everything was so static. Then the delivery of the lines was like a school play: Person1: says something to Person 2 Camera pans to Person 2, then pause, then Person 2 answers. It was really bad.
As someone who was a childhood fan of Star Trek and around seven years old when TNG premiered on TV. I for one dismissed the show outright and was not a fan until the latter half of the third season and here's why You have to remember, TNG began airing during halfway through The Motion Picture Era. As Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home released in theaters the year before. The portrayals of Starfleet and the Federation in TNG and TMP were complete polar opposites. In the TMP era, The galaxy was a gritty, dark, serious hard edged place where a heavily militarized Starfleet was preparing for an all out war with the Klingons and, or Romulans. In the TNG era, the galaxy was suddenly a lighthearted utopia, where all that conflict vanished and everyone was holding hands. Singing Kumbaya. That was a walking contradiction for me. (Which would be ultimately resolved during the events of ST VI The Undiscovered Country and the two-part TNG Unification episode) To me, TNG season 1 - early 3 seemed boring and bland. Especially as I preferred Motion Picture Star Trek and yes, I'm including ST V The Final Frontier. It wasn't until elements of the Motion Picture era were incorporated into TNG . For example, the Klingon Bird-of-Prey. A common nemesis (Cardassians). A new galactic threat (Borg). When the show found it's footing and became watchable
I am so glad this video exists! I agree so much it’s downright cathartic. Action is how inchoate possibilities become realized and it creates a model with which we can predict what someone will do and thus confirm what we know about them. I’ve used different language to express the same idea against many who think what has meaning in a character, or a story, is what takes the most wiki space to describe. Not only is something like backstory over-prioritized, actions that have a decisive or climactic role in the present story are even DIMINISHED because they don’t pay off something from the backstory. The concept of inner struggles sometimes being more important than external ones gets pushed to an extreme and it feels as if it’s being argued the characters aren’t growing or feeling during the main narrative.
I remember as a teenager being so excited for the new Star Trek to come out. If I hadn’t been such a geek raised on TOS I can’t imagine I would’ve grind through that first season with any sort of optimism. But just think how much great storytelling we would’ve missed out on had they stopped. Opinions tend to be all or nothing, Roddenberry is the worst or the best, but the truth is his dictate that Star Fleet and the Federation should represent the pinnacle of humanities evolution. Is what allowed TNG to walk the thin line of allowing conflict within the Star Trek universe, and its characters… without losing the in-universe moral compass. IMO, we are seeing examples of this in some of the current Star Trek content.
Thank you for making this video, I've been playing DND for the better part of 10 years now and I'm always looking to improve and learn. I always enjoyed making a world of lore and things and then letting my players throw wrenches in it and then I have to figure out how the world reacts to those wrenches. Other friends have had games and kept asking me how to run a game as good as mine and I could never put it into words quite right but I think this video does a good job differentiating character, plot, lore, and their inter-mingling.
Character is the sum of the motivations of a person. These motivations must drive the story forward, otherwise the actions of a person in a plot become unreasonable and thus unbelievable.
I think its ok, very few series knock it out the park in their first season, even one of the greatest tv shows of all time, the X Files takes to about half way in the season to really start being great.
I wouldn't say TNG Season 1 was a failure, but it was lacking. I did not like how Marina Sirtis' Deanna Troi was written (or maybe it was the acting) in Season 1, but the character improved afterward.
They wanted to get so much done, maybe afraid they’d get cancelled in a minute. I forgot how many ideas they packed into the first season, and it feels like it goes so long. This probably reflects a rapid evolution as they’re learning a lot as they go.
It's more cringey than bad, and very much trying to find itself, but there is a lot to be admired about it. In some ways, TNG in seasons 3 onward lost the adventuresome spirit of seasons 1 and 2.
It's both, if it makes the audience cringe and you were not going for it that is bad. Part of the problem of later seasons is the recycling of ideas. Another special anomaly solved with trecknobable, another holodeck malfunction, another diplomatic mission. Sometimes they manage a fresh spin but when they don't it feels stale.
A character's character lets you know exactly how a character will behave in a given situation. In fact, when a character acts out of character, we feel it, and it often kills the story.
One of the biggest issues for TNG - character flaws were rarely developed, even in other seasons. If anything the few characters who did have flaws that made them interesting… they went on to DS9.
because of Gene Rodenberry's enlightened future rule book which created boring character's, Tasha Yar was a wasted opportunity, the cameras were awful, the uniforms were terrible, the main big bad idea was comical (the ferengi) and the lack of guts in the crew and the boring writing of Gene Roddenberry, All the original films and tv series' improved when Rodenberry was not involved in the scripts
Most new shows can have character problems in their first season but I think a bigger problem was the borrowing of TOS episodes and only modifying therm slightly or poorly using ideas from the abandoned Phase 2 stories.
TNG season 1 has a few great episodes like Conspiracy, a few ridiculous episodes like The Naked Now, and a character who deaerved better in Tasha Yar. Still don't love how Yar exited the show.
Some of the early episodes are blatant remakes of episodes from classic Trek. Conspiracy is a cool episodes with the guybyou love to hate from that earlier episode whede Picard was being audited was the villain.
well first season was more isolated stories with less character and character development then later seasons so i think this is very accurate...also missing a episode in season 1 your never left behind cause the plot only spans one episode
When it first debuted, I was put off that a few episodes I saw were rehash from TOS with, "Oh, gee, what Kirk & crew did isn't working, what will we do now?" It took a while for me to come back to watching b/c it didn't seem very original. The development of each *character* is what did the trick.
Gene Roddenberry was adamant that the characters would not cause any conflict and thus the plot of many stories often had the plot driven by outside forces. By S3 Berman took over and directed writers to have the characters drive the story. That direction really changed the tone of the show and help grow the beard as it were.
After rewatching the whole series for the first time recently I was surprised by how much I enjoyed season 1 relative to how I felt about it the first time. Not only was it interesting to see again where all the characters started off (knowing now how they would end up) but more than just that I was impressed by how much I enjoyed the writing of most episodes. For sure there were a few bad ones but I felt that season 2 was the worst in terms of how few great episodes and how many terrible episodes there were.
I'm stopping at 3:48. Roddenberry promised Paramount that he was the only one to touch the show in the beginning, and Paramount wanted to disembowel Gene, once and for all if it tanked and Gene's name would never be used ever, ever, and forever again. I would have bound and gagged Roddenberry and have someone else write memos to HQ that life is lovely, but that would be cheating and no one invited me. If I had been there, I would be on the side of the room chanting, "Skant! Skant! Skant!!" Let's keep in mind that TNG is warping to almost forty years since inception. And...that's about all that needs to be said. Avoid verbosity; it causes wrinkles. Now if you come back with the whole lo-down of Enterprise or any others and how one eliminates? And are the rumors true--that, um, that is the basis of chipped beef on toast, you may call me out and as long as it doesn't get me arrested, I'll accept punishment. 😃😉🖖
Watching early TNG when it first arrived required a certain amount of faith, especially when the show had it's inevitable legion of haters. But there were still some good episodes and it deserved patience because it was the first attempt at reinventing Trek. TOS was a tough act to follow simply because of the sheer variety of storytelling and well defined characters. 🖖
I never understood the "fear is the only enemy" fear helps us stay safe, fear prevents us from doing things that may harm you. Yes fear can be debilitating but only if you let it. Allowing some fear can be a good thing, not letting it be in charge is the real problem.
I can understand how someone would hold that view. I don't *agree,* but I can understand. To me, the first two seasons were a bit of a rocky start because while most of the episodes were just fine, there were also a few in each season that I just couldn't stand, due to the way they unfolded, or the reasoning used by the characters. This only rarely happened in later seasons, though I thought too many episodes of the final seasons were *too much* about the characters, and didn't rest on an interesting-enough premise apart from that. I think "Interface," "Lower Decks," "Homeward," "Eye of the Beholder" and "Preemptive Strike" are some of the weakest episodes in the series, but then again, for me, while good writing matters, it can't really make up for a lack of imaginative subject matter (or "spectacle" as you put it.)
Honestly, the lighting in season one bugs the heck out of me.. everything casts a shadow making it so obvious it's a set. The lighting is so bad it completely ruins the immersion.
You explored the nuts and bolts of why season one was so bad, but not the CAUSE. It's a cause common to many new TV shows. The writers themselves don't know the characters yet, and they're discovering who they are right along with the audience over a period of multiple episodes. Other shows have the same problem. In particular, the first season of "Seinfeld" (only five episodes) felt stilted and meager in the confidence of the writing compared to later seasons. It took some time for to fall into a winning groove. "Cheers" was similar. The characterization felt tentative in the first episode and not quite natural. It took some time for the writers themselves to discover the nuances of the characterizations which fleshed them out into beloved characters. On the other hand, "Lost" hit an absolute home run on the first episode, but slowly got bogged down in the piling up of mysteries over the seasons until it was virtually impossible to provide a satisfying ending. I call that the "J.J." curse. He knows how to give us a bang-up beginning but can't deliver on a satisfying development over the seasons. The nature of the medium of television creates these variations of quality over time, whether it's weak episodes that build into praiseworthy hit shows, or a flashy big bang opening that peters out under the incompetent storytelling of the creatives. "Dexter" was another of the latter type. But there are the rare ones that maintain the quality throughout. "Maxwell in the Middle" was one that was equally hilarious throughout all seasons. So was "Frasier"---but it cheated by building on the development accomplished by "Cheers." Still there have been a gazillion spin-offs that flopped, so the "Frasier" team proved it was well prepared to knock it out of the park every episode. "Six Feet Under" maintained its quality throughout and gave us a brilliant, thoroughly satisfying ending. And of course "Breaking Bad" is probably the best example of them all. "Babylon 5" also qualifies, but we know the reason why it maintained its quality. The whole five seasons were mapped out in advanced. The producer and the writers knew what they were aiming for all along. That makes me wonder if all the constantly-high-quality-episode shows were also better developed before the first episode went into production. Film makers don't have the luxury of discovering characters over time. They have to do the work up-front in the screenwriting phase, because they only have one shot to succeed or die. Not counting test screenings, I guess. But doing reshoots is a very expensive way of getting it right.
rewatching tng directly after watching voy and ds9 is an experience... personally, i just take it with a sense of humor, choosing to love it for the quirks and have fun with them, knowing that it'll find its footing eventually.
To be fair, season 1 of Next Generation lay some great foundations for entire Trek universe with some really great episodes. Voyager needed 3 seasons to find its footing, its normal i guess
The paraphrase Red Letter Media - "Season One was written by people who grew up in the 1930's for a 1960s TV show that was airing in the 1980s"
Yup.
That doesn't make any sense. 😆
@@pferreira1983 it's shade at Roddenberry
@ Still sounds like RLM not making much sense. 😂
As a counterpoint though, the first season of TOS wasn't nearly as bad. And I'm a guy who grew up in the 80s watching TNG long before I ever saw much TOS.
I thought it had to do with Gene Roddenberry wanting to keep a tight grip on creative control of TNG and the franchise, and his infamous rule where there was to be no interpersonal conflict between the main characters because he believed that humans in the 24th century evolved past that, and they all get along and were perfect. Which had the writers be expected to write drama with no conflict and adhere to his optimistic vision of humanity's enlightened future, which was detrimental to the storytelling due to a lack of dramatic possibilities.
Right. All conflict came from outside the Enterprise. The crew just react to things in they way they're suppose to. It's good for classic episodic storyteling, because the characters never change and always act as their character is suppose to. I think it was once Michael Pillar became a story editor they started having stories where the crew was more involved or had connection to the story, which made for way better storytelling. The characters don't really evolve, but we get a bit more insight into them to get us to care about the crew more.
One step deeper. Limitations cause creativity. Trying to have a bunch of writers spin Gene's ideas into stories, becomes interesting. If you give Gene unlimited room to dictate story. You get the TMP novel. Which is very horny if you haven't read it. And you can't do that on TV for a start. If the writers have total freedom, you get Discovery and Picard. You need a balance.
Also, honestly, TNG got good because the cast became friends. Frakes even started directing. They seem like a real crew later on... Because they were.
Yeah. Every time someone mentions that new Trek isn't Roddenberry's Trek, I point out what they think is Roddenberry's Trek is very different than what Roddenberry actually wanted.
I think this is overblown. There was character conflict in the 1960s version; it starts with Kirk / Spock / McCoy, and later they give voice to Scotty and his love of the ship (which leads to him getting his crew in trouble, and Tribbles).
Yes, you nailed it. The crew are caricatures rather than characters, perfect starfleet officers and any character had to come from outside the ship. If the Original crew acted like the season 1 TNG crew you would never get the banter between Bones and Spock.
I think TNG would have got cancelled just like the original series, if Gene Roddenberry had lived and still had control after 2 or 3 seasons.
A good reason TV Tropes has a topic of "Growing the Beard" for how a TV show massively improves from first season on.
Ensemble casts need time to gel, on the page at least if not during screenings. Either the writers nail it in season one ("Firefly") or they become better writers ("Firefly" was not Whedon's first series).
The answer is Gene Roddenberry. Best thing that happened to both the TOS movie series and TNG was him not being able to strangle it with his out-of-touch script re-writing and arbitrary rules on what Star Trek is. There's a reason that absolutely no Gene Roddenberry heavy hour of TNG is well remembered (you can tell the ones he re-wrote, he's got a very clear voice). I give him thanks for his casting - he smashed it out of the park there - but that should have been the end of his involvement with the show. Rick Berman and Michael Piller are the reason that the TNG era became peak Trek. And not forgetting, Melissa Snodgrass, Hans Beimler, Richard Manning, Jeri Taylor, Ronald Moore, Ira Steven Behr, Robert Wolfe, Brannon Braga and many others whose names we should be shouting from rooftops, instead of erasing their contributions because of Gene's self-mythology.
Short answer: Riker did not have a beard yet!
That is the main problem of season 1.
Yes the beard had a wisdom of its own !🎉
Yes it was beard that done it
Yar wasn't dead yet. That was the problem.
Riker can make nautical naughty.
"You weren't like that before the beard!" -Q
For me, the first truly great episode of ST:TNG was season 2's "A Matter Of Honor." As part of an officer exchange program, Riker serves aboard a Klingon ship. Plenty of great character moments to hold the viewer's interest.
I'm rewatching the whole show and you're absolutely right, this was the first episode I really liked.
I am sorry, but there is no such thing as a 'great episode' of TNG.
I thought speaking about TNG made me feel old. Voyager being 30... oh man.
thanks, thanks for making me feel old.
@@chrisgoodness6531 But it was only 20... a couple of years ago 😮
Sheesh, I remember the big deal they made for the the original series' twenty-fifth anniversary.
It's been fifteen since the reboot movies started too...
I think it's pretty obvious that the passive nature of the characters you correctly pointed out was the direct result of the Rodenberry edict that there could be no internal conflict between the regular characters and all conflict had to come from outside. So this forced the stories to always be about the characters reacting to something forced upon them from outside, and no internal strife between them. Once Rodenberry was pushed upstairs, and the writers could actually write compelling stories about compelling characters who actually drive the story, ST began to improve.
" pushed upstairs"
In fairness there is sttill a lot of bad or just dull episodes later. When TNG works it has great episodes which stick in people's minds while a lot of the rest is just forgotten.
I love Rodenberry's edict about no internal conflict between the regular characters. It forced the writers to make stories about bigger things than petty squabbles or the perpetual "will they / won't they" relationships seen on almost every other show.
The issue is that many writers didn't know how to write without that conflict among the cast. Once they figured that out the show got better and tackled deeper things.
In a sense, Rodenberry removed a crutch that writers had become reliant on - but didn't really need. It just took them time to adapt.
That's what Star Trek is supposed to be. It's about characters exploring the unknown reacting to what they find. It's not a soap opera where characters bicker amongst themselves. That would get old quick.
@@carlpeters8690 epic comment, i hate the soap opera nonsense in most shows , maybe this is why tng is my favourite ST
The Picard character came without the optional spine installed. They found one in the writers room during the break before season two and installed it. The show improved immensely after that.
And they said his heart was the artificial part of his body
They also found a beard that they installed on Riker.
@@mjjoe76Frakes found the beard. He grew it in the hiatus between Season 1 and 2. Got too many comments about "babyface" Riker. Grew the beard to make himself look older. Like Patrick's bald head, Roddenberry suddenly liked it.
Season 1 of TNG sucks because Gene Roddenberry wasn't as good as people like to remember. It was no accident that the crew had no character. That was a feature, not a bug. According to Roddenberry, the Enterprise was supposed to represent the pinnacle of humanity, where humans had grown beyond their more baser traits... AKA the exact thing that gives people character. So instead of being interesting, the Enterprise crew were simply passive observers because that was the enlightened thing to do. You can't have any of that pesky individuality, which leads to differing opinions and conflict.
Roddenberry is the reason Trek has endured for as long as it has. He kept it from becoming generic schlock people would have forgotten about decades ago. The crew being "passive observers" is what made the original show the hit that it became. The show was about exploring the unknown, not interpersonal relationships. With that being said, characters in Trek have always had differing opinions. Even in the first season of TNG. But the differing opinions and conflict would revolved around how to solve a problem as opposed to petty squabbles like you see in soap operas. That is how Trek is supposed to be.
Agreed. Gene Roddenberry was good as an ideas guy--painting with a large brush. It's when he wanted to start painting in the details that he was completely out of his element. And it's interesting that all of his 1950s/1960s stuff is very character driven, very much based on interpersonal conflict. But once he got into the 1970s and tried painting details with that big brush--well, it's no surprise that Genesis II or the The Questor Tapes went nowhere.
fascinating, I don't know much about Roddenberry himself, was he really as prickish as some people say?
@@AbrasiousProductions no. It's likely just a bunch of writers and producers butthurt over Roddenberry not letting them put out generic schlock. The same kind of generic schlock that's been coming out in recent years. Roddenberry wanted Trek to be meaningful. Furthermore, it's easy for the living to blame the dead being as the dead can't tell their side of the story.
@@DeepDeepSpace hmm, I trust you, it seems many heroes are undervalued in their time, we see it happening right now with trump, the man nearly died multiple times for this country and there's still people demonizing him for falsified shit. thanks for clearing my mind dude✌
I was 14 when TNG came out, and I remember feeling a little let down by the 1st season. However, there was pretty much no other quality sci-fi on TV at the time, so I was willing to give it a lot of slack.
And when I say TNG S1 was "quality sci-fi", I simply mean sci-fi that took itself seriously and was sincere, not a comedy show or obviously low-budget series like pretty much everything else sci-fi on TV at the time. TNG S1 wasn't the highest quality in relation to what the show grew into, but was very high quality in terms of budget and seriousness, as well having many high quality ideas for many of its episodes. Fans appreciated the show being a serious show for more mature-minded people and not a generic cash-grab.
But I agree 100% with the thesis of this video: the 1st season was not great. However, it was just good enough for everyone to see its potential, and thankfully it was given a chance to become successful.
It helped a ton that it was obviously high budget. Imagine if it had been a low budget show with the bad writing of season 1. It would've been cancelled mid-season 1.
I do think that people talking about the first two seasons don't often take into consideration the context of the time, what else was being screened at that time and the fact that we had a lot less choice of entertainment then.
The main lesson is "never let the old man try to save money by flushing his pile of old scripts into your first season."
Season 1 was filmed largely using scripts created for earlier Trek reboot attempts which Roddenberry had on file (and already paid for), and his writing team had to rewrite those scripts for this set of characters without incurring co-author credit (which Rodenberry would have to pay them for beyond being on-staff writers). There were a few scripts left for Season 2, especially the biggest clunkers, but most of that old crap had migrated out of Rodenberry's file and he needed new work from his own writing crew, who actually knew their characters and how they should react.
Gene was a lot of things, but he was also a cheap bastard about paying writers.
He also wrote lyrics for Courage's Star Trek theme so that he could get extra money as a "co-writer" of the theme song though it was played without lyrics.
Addendum to my previous comment. I think you can get a pretty good full 26 episode season when you combine the best of season 1 and 2...
01. ENCOUNTER AT FARPOINT
02. WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE
03. THE BATTLE
04. HIDE AND Q
05. THE BIG GOODBYE
06. DATALORE
07. 11001001
08. HOME SOIL
09. COMING OF AGE
10. HEART OF GLORY
11. THE ARSENAL OF FREEDOM
12. SKIN OF EVIL
13. CONSPIRACY
14. THE NEUTRAL ZONE
15. WHERE SILENCE HAS LEASE
16. ELEMENTARY DEAR DATA
17. A MATTER OF HONOR
18. THE MEASURE OF A MAN
19. CONTAGION
20. TIME SQUARED
21. THE ICARUS FACTOR
22. PEN PALS
23. SAMARITAN SNARE
24. THE EMISSARY
25. PEAK PERFORMANCE
26. Q WHO
The only mid episodes are The Neutral Zone and Skin of Evil, but both are essential to learn about the death of Tasha and the return of the Romulans. The rest, imo, are either good, very good, or even great.
Encounter at farpoint is also pretty bad IMO
@@Four_scythe Still vital for the introductions of the characters.
I love this, my list would be slightly different but we can chalk that up to differences of opinion. I'm also going to rearrange some episodes
1) Encounter at Farpoint
2) Where No One Has Gone Before
3) The Battle
4) The Big Goodbye
5) Datalore
6) 11001001
7) Home Soil
8) Coming of Age
9) Heart of Glory
10) The Naked Now
11) The Arsenal of Freedom
12) Hide and Q
13) Skin of Evil
14) We'll Always Have Paris
15) Conspiracy
16) The Neutral Zone
17) Elementary, Dear Data
18) Loud As A Whisper
19) The Schizoid Man
20) Unnatural Selection
21) A Matter Of Honor
22) The Measure Of A Man
23) The Royale
24) Time Squared
25) The Icarus Factor
26) The Emissary
27) Peak Performance
28) Q Who
This would be my list and order. I included a few more season 1 episodes than I would have based on quality alone. I kept Encounter At Farpoint, The Naked Now, Skin of Evil and The Neutral Zone because IMO they are important episodes for later. The Naked Now is mostly just for the Tasha/Data stuff, which you can debate if it's needed. I pushed it later in the season so it could seem more obvious how their characters are affected by the virus. I also moved Hide and Q to right before Tasha's death to try and space out the Q visits as much as possible.
Interestingly, our Season 1 list of episodes is almost identical, but we have more differences on what to keep from Season 2. Nothing wrong with your choices, my list is just tailored to my taste.
If I had to cut two to get down to 26 episodes, it would probably be The Schizoid Man and The Royale?
@@Four_scythe Nah it's awesome.
@ProxyExpy The Royale is most surreal episode in the whole canon of Trek. I've seen it so many times and can't decide if I absolutely despise it or am entirely fascinated by it.
I am one of the few who LOVES season 1!
It's very nostalgic for me. It's fun to watch a show finding it's footing. It's also very reminiscent of the Original Series with the campy, flippant nature of the stories.
I was born in 1971. Patrick Stewart was 6 years younger than me in the first season!
Agree its like tos and i love it also
This is why I tell people your characters ARE the plot. Every good plot is built around characters actions and interactions due to the scenario they find themselves in. If you can't imagine how a character would interact in the scenario they're in, then they might not work in that particular story.
No... that's just not how authors and writers, write. The story itself was always conceived first, then the writer would have the characters move, show, and tell that story forward. The story makes great characters, while characters make no story, because they are the story, and why would we care about them? You care about Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Darth Vader and classic Star Wars because you're vested in the story and its goals. Most people don't like modern Star Wars because it's not story-centric, but character-centric, and with unlikeable characters.
@@MarkLewis... Writers can write in different ways, some people do the story first and write the characters around it, other people think up of characters and then put them in a story. They make very different types of thing though. But I don't think you can necessarily separate the story and characters. The characters only exist in the plot.
No, this is not always the case. Sometimes it is about the ideas the story is bringing forward. There are many sci-fi books that are about concepts and not about characters.
@ Yes, writers can write in different ways. They can write a story-centric idea, or a character-centric idea. As an example of the 2 (though there are more, but these are the primary ways) writers can write "Old Star Wars" or "New Star Wars". With old SW, we care about Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, and Darth Vader because we are vested in the story and its goals. Most SW fans hate New SW because the characters are the story and the characters are unlikable. For literally millennia writers have written stories first, then have the characters move that story forward, (a method Joseph Campbell has talked about in his books) but modern writers have tried to (literally) flip the script on that successful formula and have the characters be the story. This is why most people hate modern movies, modern (Disney) Star Wars, and pretty much all of Hollywood these days. The writers don't know how to write, and these people, (sadly) are in control of Hollywood.
"The Arsenal of Freedom" is one of the best S1 episodes, because: 1. Picard does something and 2. Geordi does something.
There's also this issue that even with all the backstory, the actors don't know how these characters should act/react and then us as an audience don't know who these people are, so we can't make a connection to them.
One perfect example is "The Naked Now" where they encounter the same mind-altering infection as Kirk and crew did in TOS. A lot of the criticism comes from this being only the second (third with the pilot) episode and we have no basis for how these people are acting when they are intoxicated because we haven't seen them acting normal.
I do see the comments here about Roddenberry's involvement and how he was essentially stifling the creation of the characters until season 2, but I can't help but feel that the show being in its infancy didn't help matters any either.
Yet, I look at it this way: we wouldn't have had Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country without TMP, so it had to start somewhere.
The writers and actors not knowing the characters in Season one was absolutely part of the problem. The other part IMO was society had changed between 1960s and 1980s and audiences had changed, their tastes had changed, so the stories had to change.
It seems like the more Rodenberry was involved in day to day the worse the shows were. He was good ideas guy. Creating charactera and worlds and such. Not exactly a great story teller/showrunner guy
Edit: some people have pointed out its the same thing with George Lucas. I agree with that. Outside of ANH whenever he was more hands on it was worse.
i heard that too he kinda vetoed a lot of good ideas
Roddenberry and George Lucas are very similar: (Often) great ideas, but terrible execution/detailwork
Roddenberry's health was not good at that time. While he had overall control of scripts and the production, he wasn't well enough to write too much himself. His lawyer (if I'm remembering correctly) did a significant amount of re-writing during season 1 instead. I'm open to correction on this, but it was stated on 'Chaos On The Bridge'.
@justtheaverageone3840 yup. There is nothing wrong with being an idea guy but they don't exactly translate well to directors
@@CaminoAirya his attorney started sitting in on story meetings and the other writers didn't like it. The attorney would also start making notes to existing scripts written by staff writers.
My earliest memory of TNG was the advertising during season one on a box of Cheerios when I was about 7 or 8 years old.
The main reason is that it was rushed into production on the heels of the unexpectedly large success of ST:IV, and it really didn’t have a lot of development time. Whereas TOS had a normal (for the time) development period, and had all the major pieces in place BEFORE it hit the air, TNG really didn’t have any development time. They just threw some leftover ideas from “Phase 2” together, made it an ensemble instead of a focused-lead show, and slapped it on the air with scripts that would not have managed to make it to air as episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea in the old days.
Another major problem was Roddenberry should *not* have been in charge. He was a nightmare to work for/with back in TOS days and on TMP. There’s a very clear reason he was never in charge of another TV show between 1968 and 1987. Bring him in as a consultant, sure, let him write a script now and again, sure, but the man had all of his old bad habbits *plus* he was completely out of touch, and insisted on running a late-80s show as though it was still the 1960s, which was massively different. I mean, imagine trying to do a sitcom in the style of “I Love Lucy” in the age of “Arrested Development.” It wasn’t quite as bad as my example, but he was so functionally out of touch that the show couldn’t do anything but suck.
And he had a pathological aversion to anything that gave texture to a story. Love? Money? Politics? Religion? Crime? Culture? Meaning of Life? Nope, none of that. Just a bland Ramada Inn version of the future by a coked-up guy who had no real interest in anything other than his own legend.
I remember someone high up in the studio - I can’t remember who - saying that if the show didn’t have “Star Trek” tacked on to the title, it would not have survived its first season.
If it hadn't have been an ensemble cast, I don't think it would have survived the first season.
The ensemble problem is one I encounter with writers often.
One, most writers want something generic, and write that, and their brain then can't go any further.
So they go, I want a Klingon. Great. We have a Klingon! So now your brain is done because it gave you what you wanted.
What you have to do is write a character that is needed, and provides meaningful conflict, and then say, Make him a Klingon. They clearly did not do this.
Also, finding enough for a large group to do is rough, unless you move quick. Big Bang and Modern Family's later years show how large casts bog down quickly. Arrested Development season 1-3 however shows how you deal with it. Three times the scenes moving fast. Get plot, get joke, get moving on to the next scene.
(1) Picard was a stuffy character who hated children
(2) Riker was a stereotypical womanizer
(3) Deana was a helpless, overemotional female, whose only line was, “Captain, I think they’re hiding something.”
(4) Geordi didn’t really have any definite job yet.
(5) Worf was a growling idiot.
(6) Wesley was just an irritating know-it-all teenager.
(7) Doctor Crusher was just the over protective mother.
Geordi was supposed to be the blind pilot (ironic, huh?)
Worf was supposed to be the first Klongon Starfleet officer, but with no other role
Wesley unfortunately slipped into the Marysue role (which appeared in Roddenberry's pile of leftover scripts used for the first season a lot, so they stuck poor Wil Wheaton with that role)
You also didn't mention Tasha Yar, who was supposed to be another "groundbreaking" role as a female kick-ass security officer (at a time when women weren't allowed in combat roles in the US military) but otherwise given short shrift. By eliminating her character, they could move Worf into the security role, and give Geordi the one prime role for a Sci-Fi show they needed but didn't have the money for, chief engineer.
And I think Deana had the best revenge, because in her challenges for climbing to full Commander, she realized that she had to order Geordi to his death in order to save the ship, and both he and she realized that yes, she would do that if necessary.
@@shantanusaha9746 There wasn't even ging to be an engineering set until Roddenberry wrote a scene in the pilot set in engineering just to get the set made.
Worf was the last main character added. The original plan was not use any previously used aliens.
Had Denise Crosby not quit, Gates McFadden not gotten herself fired, and Sirtis not become good friends with Majel Barrett, Deanna Troi would've been axed. Sirtis feared that at the time, she'd been written out of some episodes. Years later, Majel confirmed Counselor Troi was on the chopping block, but they kept Troi because they didn't want to lose all the existing female cast members.
Riker does have some character moments in Hide and Q in a whole "power corrupts" story, but even in that episode, stuff mostly happens to the crew and Q is the one driving the episode.
I think another problem with Season 1 is the actors didn't have a firm handle on the characters they were portraying, and they mostly come across as stiff. Luckily by Season 2, they were more comfortable in their characters and developed personality.
Very interesting video! Just subbed!
Well said I don't think the writers and producers had everything fully in mind and set out beforehand. I was just pointing out Peggy Bundy in the first season of Married With Children was cooking and stuff like that around the house. And Kelly wasn't a dunce. I think it takes a little bit of watching the person play that role to realize the actors strengths in portraying certain aspects that will work and won't work.
I do realize that's kind of ironic when we're thinking about this show, because Brett Steiner plays an emotionless unfunny robot yet anybody who has seen him as Bob Wheeler on Night Court knows he is damn f****** funny
I know the early seasons were not the best. However, I treat them like bonus content from a time we can't return to. It's just nice to see the cast I enjoy together.
I never realized how bad much of the first season was until later on because I watched the series out of order. The episode that got me hooked was Season 7, Episode 11 Parallels (the Worf episode).
By the time I was able to start TNG chronologically, I had already seen the middle later seasons (3 and above) including the finale. It was jarring to see the differences. The uniforms in season one looked so different without the collars, men wearing skirts, the Engineering officer changing weekly, etc. As a prior casual, I don't think I would have fallen for Star Trek if I saw season 1 first.
That was my problem. I started watching from Season 1, and didn't stick with TNG long enough for it to get good.
I have long maintained that a good character is someone you can easily imagine in any given scenario - you would have a clear concept of how they would behave, what they would do or not do, if they would fit in or stand out, if they would have a good time or not, etc, etc. Because _action_ *IS* _character._
Action AND reason are character, not one alone.
Without understanding of why someone is doing something, you don't know anything about their character.
A show like Dexter or House lacks character without their backstory because their actions alone show they are just "serial killer" and "asshole doctor".
And you can even take this into the real world.
You're stripping someone who would otherwise generally be seen as a hero down to "guy who shot someone" the moment you decide the information about the person being shot being about to shoot the "guy who shot somrone's" daughter doesn't matter since that's the reason, not the action taken.
Both are 100% necessary for character.
1 action + x reason = character.
@RunicSigils, indeed, that goes without saying.
What's weird about TNG season 1 is that I CONSTANTLY go back to it because I need reminding that TNG, when it began, freaking sucked. It makes you look at your own work and go "Right. CAN I find anything TNG season 1 in here" and if I do, i pull that out and throw it out the window. There's a strange amount of benefit with TNG season 1 that makes you go "Ah, so things need TIME and focus and a vision that isn't Gene Roddenberrys." And the best kind of fiction to consume to make you a better creative is stuff that's garbage because a) you will go "I can do better than THAT" and b) you WILL be humbled because you WILL spot all the mistakes THEY made and you can stop those errors from happening. And c) You WILL appreciate Jonathan Frakes' beard because he looks naked without one.
I love the first and second season of TNG because its "So bad its good" except Code of Honor, that's really bad. Then again I am a fan of Samurai Cop so...
Well, I'm a Trekker--so that is probably why I don't hate TNG S1! Certainly there were a lot of slow and awkward episodes. But I promise you at the time it was first broadcast the thing that mattered most was 'this is new Trek'. I clearly recall talking to my pal who is a somewhat softer core fan than me and his asking 'Well? What did you think?' after we had just seen 'Encounter at Farpoint' for the first time. I shrugged and said 'Doesn't matter. Its new Star Trek!' and he agreed.
We hadn't had a new weekly show since... TAS? So mid-1970's. Of course WoK and VH had been high points from the ToS movies by then, so it hadn't been an entire desert. But to suddenly have a new story every week... It didn't matter how painful some of them were. They were 100% set in the same universe, had the same races and ships that were recognizably starfleet... This was our world.
At the end of the day it is hard to explain unless you were there at the time. The quality really didn't seem to matter. It was the affection for the universe that counted. And they are not all universally poor either. Some hold up pretty well--at least when considered alongside other late 1980's SF television content.
Its not, its fine with 10 solid episodes, and rest of season had some ok and some really bad and truly some terrible episodes. It was just warming up with some great setups like introducing android Data, new technology Holodeck, Q, new type of ship and many more. Its fine, not great, but fine
Maybe Gene Roddenberry and the writers couldn't find their footing at the beginning of TNG particularly with the writing and ideas. That seemed to change when The Borg came into TNG and when Gene Roddenberry passed away.
In the first season of Married With children, Peggy was a housewife and would cook and Kelly wasn't a complete airhead she was just a big sister who hated her little brother. The characters evolved into what they became because it made for a way better show. Their characters also became way deeper after the changes. At first they weren't totally sure exactly what they should be but once they got everything set the rest is history. Same thing very much with the Next Generation here, they were still working The Kinks out and figuring out the best way to present each character as to the actor's strength.
Both shows premiered the same year.
@russellharrell2747 I never thought of that, I mean I know they both started in the 80s but I didn't realize it was in the same year cool.
As a big fan of Night Court I kind of wish that Star Trek next Generation had started a couple years later, because I would have loved to see Brett Spiner stay on his Bob Wheeler and him and his wife keep running the Newsstand on the show cuz he was so damn funny on that show.
Whenever I go back to season 1, I always forget how much of a nothing character Worf started out as and he ended up being one of the most complex characters in Star Trek.
I read he was only meant to be a secondary character until Tasha died.
You can understand, in retrospect, why Jonathan Frakes kept the Riker beard. It’s very good luck.
As plenty of others have said, Season 1 (and 2) flaws are simply down to one reason:
Roddenberry...
The main problems with the first two seasons were Roddenberry and his dumbass lawer preventing the writers from doing anything good.
2025: “come back Roddenberry and your dumbass lawyer, all is forgiven”
This. It turns out many of the things we loved about TOS weren't because of Roddenberry but contributions of others: Dorothy Fontana, Gene Coon, John Black, Herb Solow, etc. When he was is sole charge of things, ST:TMP and TNG season 1, things kind of sucked.
Also: Maurice Hurley. Yes, let's hire an executive producer who knows nothing about either science ficiton or Star Trek.
When it first came out in 87, my Dad and I actually loved the first season of TNG! In fact, I still love it to this day. The first season for me felt "peaceful" with the way it was depicted on screen, plus Ron Jone's score was straight up pure 80's. I know the first season sucks due to bad writing, but I overall enjoyed the season as I re-watch my VHS-Recordings it over and over again as a little kid.
Also note: My Dad recorded all the episodes of TNG (and TOS) and has a system for it: He used two VCRs - one to record the episode as it aired, and the second he use to edited out the commercials. The Series Final, "All Good Things..." is the only episode recorded without editing out the commercials. Overall, we had the entire TNG series recorded on 25 8-hour VHS tapes.
Armin Shimerman, in an interview about Deep Space Nine, said that part of his motivation for playing Quark was to redeem the horrible Ferengi he portrayed in "The Last Outpost". That's the most Star Trek nerd way of looking at it I can think of.
3:42 Fun fact: Aristotle says almost this EXACT thing in the Poetics.
While I was yammering on earlier, I forgot to mention that your insights about season 1 are very good. Thanks for doing that!
It’s kind of a common failing of TVSF in the long, lean years between 1970 and 1990. With a few very noteworthy exceptions, space-based SF shows - especially ones that try to have highfalutin’ ideas - tend to have a rather passive cast around which the story happens. Take “The Troubled Spirit” or “Black Sun” from Space:1999 A bunch of stuff happens, and the crew just kind of go through it, then it stops happening and everything is fine.
As opposed to the comparatively lowbrow Battlestar Galactica (1978) in which Adama breaks orders and saves humanity, and when Apollo and Starbuck break orders and save Galactica (And hence humanity). Just the actions of the characters hanging around in the fleet are pretty well defined, whether they’re getting ready to go on a recon mission, or playing Triad in their humiliating sports uniforms, or dealing with food shortages. It’s a dumb show, but it’s so much more engaging than Space: 1999 or TNG season 1.
Spock's Brain is often regarded as the worst episode of the original series and of the entire franchise but _Code of Honor_ deserves an Honorable Mention.
One was sexist and the other was sexist and racist. At least Spock's Brain has the "Brain, brain, what is brain?" line to redeem it.
STTNG was definitely "trying to find its footing" early on. However, a lot of people forget that "Q" (John DeLancey) was there right from the start. So... BOOM... lots of good stuff in the early days, but at the same time, I'm absolutely certain that the writers were struggling to find a way to keep everything straight, remain consistent, and yet PERMIT THE CHARACTERS TO GROW. And that's just what the actors helped bring about, obviously. Stewart, Spiner, and several of the other well-experienced performers probably pushed for excellent ways to help their characters grow, develop, learn, and so forth. Even the Tasha Yarr arc helped Data and the others to move beyond a huge loss.
TNG is a great example of WHY YOU DON'T CANCEL A SHOW AFTER ONE SEASON ... EVERYBODY! I just saw a series called night sky with jk Simmons and sissy spacek. Amazing. I laughed I cried, I was all about the mystery, the deal with the neighbour. They clearly thought they had another season but no. Barely 10 episodes. The more this happens the less I understand (don't get me started on final space that I first caught here on TH-cam) . All good things.... take time to get good.
I feel like seasons 1 and 2 were stifled by Gene Roddenberry having too much control.
The characters weren't allowed to feel warm.
I saw many people on YT talk about star trek, but this is next level, and a very good insight of movie making in general.
Very good content, subscribed!!
If you look at season 1 through a ToS lens, season 1 is just a bunch of so-so ToS episodes with new characters.
Much of sci-fi used to suffer from the original Buck Rogers 1930s series silly teen boy plots later continued with lost in space and finally ToS. TNG had to grow out of its history to boldly go in beyond season 1. Season 2 is better, but it's season 3+ that make the show that people loved. Without season 1 & 2 growing pains, we don't get the good stuff of 3+. Only now, when I re-watch season 1 TNG as a bonus reboot of ToS is it a barely tolerable preamble transition to the real TNG. For non, TNG fans just start them with season 3.
Surely it's the "no interpersonal conflict" edict, a rule which makes all drama impossible
And also seems incredibly of a hypocritical position for Gene Roddenberry to have consider the antagonist relationship between bones and Spock
I'm glad they identified what wasn't working out fast
Sometimes shows need time to figure things out and thus the final season of a long running TV series is very different than the first season
That's right. It takes time for the writers and actors and the audience to get to know the characters. Like a friendship it's built bit by bit.
One of the many problems was that they somehow shot the show like TOS. Everything was so static. Then the delivery of the lines was like a school play:
Person1: says something to Person 2
Camera pans to Person 2, then pause, then Person 2 answers.
It was really bad.
About half way through season 1 I was sure this show would be cancelled. Somehow bearded Riker saved the day and TNG became my favorite Trek.
As someone who was a childhood fan of Star Trek and around seven years old when TNG premiered on TV.
I for one dismissed the show outright and was not a fan until the latter half of the third season and here's why
You have to remember, TNG began airing during halfway through The Motion Picture Era.
As Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home released in theaters the year before.
The portrayals of Starfleet and the Federation in TNG and TMP were complete polar opposites.
In the TMP era, The galaxy was a gritty, dark, serious hard edged place where a heavily militarized Starfleet was
preparing for an all out war with the Klingons and, or Romulans.
In the TNG era, the galaxy was suddenly a lighthearted utopia, where all that conflict vanished and everyone was holding hands. Singing Kumbaya.
That was a walking contradiction for me.
(Which would be ultimately resolved during the events of ST VI The Undiscovered Country and the two-part TNG Unification episode)
To me, TNG season 1 - early 3 seemed boring and bland. Especially as I preferred Motion Picture Star Trek and yes, I'm including ST V The Final Frontier.
It wasn't until elements of the Motion Picture era were incorporated into TNG . For example, the Klingon Bird-of-Prey. A common nemesis (Cardassians). A new galactic threat (Borg).
When the show found it's footing and became watchable
I agree with all your points.
I still enjoyed most of it.
I don't know if that's a compliment for TNG, or a criticism of TV sci-fi at that time.
I am so glad this video exists! I agree so much it’s downright cathartic. Action is how inchoate possibilities become realized and it creates a model with which we can predict what someone will do and thus confirm what we know about them.
I’ve used different language to express the same idea against many who think what has meaning in a character, or a story, is what takes the most wiki space to describe. Not only is something like backstory over-prioritized, actions that have a decisive or climactic role in the present story are even DIMINISHED because they don’t pay off something from the backstory. The concept of inner struggles sometimes being more important than external ones gets pushed to an extreme and it feels as if it’s being argued the characters aren’t growing or feeling during the main narrative.
That double light-tube thing at 0:25 was in Airplane 2. Yes, this is an important fact, leave me alone.
I remember as a teenager being so excited for the new Star Trek to come out. If I hadn’t been such a geek raised on TOS I can’t imagine I would’ve grind through that first season with any sort of optimism. But just think how much great storytelling we would’ve missed out on had they stopped.
Opinions tend to be all or nothing, Roddenberry is the worst or the best, but the truth is his dictate that Star Fleet and the Federation should represent the pinnacle of humanities evolution. Is what allowed TNG to walk the thin line of allowing conflict within the Star Trek universe, and its characters… without losing the in-universe moral compass.
IMO, we are seeing examples of this in some of the current Star Trek content.
Thank you for making this video, I've been playing DND for the better part of 10 years now and I'm always looking to improve and learn. I always enjoyed making a world of lore and things and then letting my players throw wrenches in it and then I have to figure out how the world reacts to those wrenches. Other friends have had games and kept asking me how to run a game as good as mine and I could never put it into words quite right but I think this video does a good job differentiating character, plot, lore, and their inter-mingling.
Character is the sum of the motivations of a person. These motivations must drive the story forward, otherwise the actions of a person in a plot become unreasonable and thus unbelievable.
The Season finale was pretty neat in its own way tho. It had a very unique feeling compared to other more typical Star Trek episodes
I love season 1 and 2.
It has some warm feeling to it.
80's were wierd times for sci-fi.
How they grow due to events good and bad. Makeing them grow in different ways to the same events, that's Dramatic.
Every Star Trek series has a rough start. Even DS9 had a couple of pretty meh seasons until they introduced the Defiant and the dominion storyline.
I think its ok, very few series knock it out the park in their first season, even one of the greatest tv shows of all time, the X Files takes to about half way in the season to really start being great.
I wouldn't say TNG Season 1 was a failure, but it was lacking. I did not like how Marina Sirtis' Deanna Troi was written (or maybe it was the acting) in Season 1, but the character improved afterward.
At the time when TNG was first boardcast, even after watching the whole of the season 1, I liked the Original series more than TNG.
I always thought season 1 sucked because Tasha Yar is terrible and Riker had no beard. Both were fixed in Season 2 and beyond.
Amazing timing. I was just thinking, why is S01 so bad.
They wanted to get so much done, maybe afraid they’d get cancelled in a minute. I forgot how many ideas they packed into the first season, and it feels like it goes so long. This probably reflects a rapid evolution as they’re learning a lot as they go.
All of your videos are amazing. You have no skips lol.
It's more cringey than bad, and very much trying to find itself, but there is a lot to be admired about it. In some ways, TNG in seasons 3 onward lost the adventuresome spirit of seasons 1 and 2.
It's both, if it makes the audience cringe and you were not going for it that is bad.
Part of the problem of later seasons is the recycling of ideas. Another special anomaly solved with trecknobable, another holodeck malfunction, another diplomatic mission. Sometimes they manage a fresh spin but when they don't it feels stale.
Referring to Data as a science officer makes me want to see the character in blue, not gold.
He’s operations officer primary, and science secondary.
Excellent point about "character"... in a General sense, I mean!
I like the daring camera angles of season 1
Well, that's an easy answer. It's because Riker didn't have his beard yet.
A character's character lets you know exactly how a character will behave in a given situation. In fact, when a character acts out of character, we feel it, and it often kills the story.
One of the biggest issues for TNG - character flaws were rarely developed, even in other seasons. If anything the few characters who did have flaws that made them interesting… they went on to DS9.
because of Gene Rodenberry's enlightened future rule book which created boring character's, Tasha Yar was a wasted opportunity, the cameras were awful, the uniforms were terrible, the main big bad idea was comical (the ferengi) and the lack of guts in the crew and the boring writing of Gene Roddenberry, All the original films and tv series' improved when Rodenberry was not involved in the scripts
Most new shows can have character problems in their first season but I think a bigger problem was the borrowing of TOS episodes and only modifying therm slightly or poorly using ideas from the abandoned Phase 2 stories.
I think that the problem with early TNG is that it was trying to be too preachy - the plot was so thick that there was no room for anything else.
TNG season 1 has a few great episodes like Conspiracy, a few ridiculous episodes like The Naked Now, and a character who deaerved better in Tasha Yar. Still don't love how Yar exited the show.
Some of the early episodes are blatant remakes of episodes from classic Trek.
Conspiracy is a cool episodes with the guybyou love to hate from that earlier episode whede Picard was being audited was the villain.
well first season was more isolated stories with less character and character development then later seasons so i think this is very accurate...also missing a episode in season 1 your never left behind cause the plot only spans one episode
Oh great Rowan! Now I want to watch Season 1 of TNG for some reason. Thanks mate.
4:31 yeah she grew up on a planet where things went a little “summer of love” ish with grape gangs and sound cloud rappists becoming warlords and all.
Have you ever noticed how S3E1 really feels like an introduction to new viewers? Come back to 1, even 2, after you’re finished.
When it first debuted, I was put off that a few episodes I saw were rehash from TOS with, "Oh, gee, what Kirk & crew did isn't working, what will we do now?" It took a while for me to come back to watching b/c it didn't seem very original. The development of each *character* is what did the trick.
As an actor, I will tell you that it is our responsibility to create a character regardless of of how poor the writers, directors, and producers are.
Gene Roddenberry was adamant that the characters would not cause any conflict and thus the plot of many stories often had the plot driven by outside forces. By S3 Berman took over and directed writers to have the characters drive the story. That direction really changed the tone of the show and help grow the beard as it were.
After rewatching the whole series for the first time recently I was surprised by how much I enjoyed season 1 relative to how I felt about it the first time. Not only was it interesting to see again where all the characters started off (knowing now how they would end up) but more than just that I was impressed by how much I enjoyed the writing of most episodes. For sure there were a few bad ones but I felt that season 2 was the worst in terms of how few great episodes and how many terrible episodes there were.
I'm stopping at 3:48. Roddenberry promised Paramount that he was the only one to touch the show in the beginning, and Paramount wanted to disembowel Gene, once and for all if it tanked and Gene's name would never be used ever, ever, and forever again. I would have bound and gagged Roddenberry and have someone else write memos to HQ that life is lovely, but that would be cheating and no one invited me.
If I had been there, I would be on the side of the room chanting, "Skant! Skant! Skant!!"
Let's keep in mind that TNG is warping to almost forty years since inception.
And...that's about all that needs to be said. Avoid verbosity; it causes wrinkles. Now if you come back with the whole lo-down of Enterprise or any others and how one eliminates? And are the rumors true--that, um, that is the basis of chipped beef on toast, you may call me out and as long as it doesn't get me arrested, I'll accept punishment.
😃😉🖖
Watching early TNG when it first arrived required a certain amount of faith, especially when the show had it's inevitable legion of haters. But there were still some good episodes and it deserved patience because it was the first attempt at reinventing Trek. TOS was a tough act to follow simply because of the sheer variety of storytelling and well defined characters. 🖖
I never understood the "fear is the only enemy" fear helps us stay safe, fear prevents us from doing things that may harm you. Yes fear can be debilitating but only if you let it. Allowing some fear can be a good thing, not letting it be in charge is the real problem.
I can understand how someone would hold that view. I don't *agree,* but I can understand.
To me, the first two seasons were a bit of a rocky start because while most of the episodes were just fine, there were also a few in each season that I just couldn't stand, due to the way they unfolded, or the reasoning used by the characters. This only rarely happened in later seasons, though I thought too many episodes of the final seasons were *too much* about the characters, and didn't rest on an interesting-enough premise apart from that. I think "Interface," "Lower Decks," "Homeward," "Eye of the Beholder" and "Preemptive Strike" are some of the weakest episodes in the series, but then again, for me, while good writing matters, it can't really make up for a lack of imaginative subject matter (or "spectacle" as you put it.)
Honestly, the lighting in season one bugs the heck out of me.. everything casts a shadow making it so obvious it's a set. The lighting is so bad it completely ruins the immersion.
its easy no ira steven behr lol
I don't know, Season 1 has such a great atmosphere and I often choose its episodes when I want a TNG vibe.
Wesley Crushers infallible actions? More like insufferable actions 😂
The series had outgrown Gene Rodenberry’s misogynistic grip and he had to be kicked upstairs so the show could breathe again.
You explored the nuts and bolts of why season one was so bad, but not the CAUSE. It's a cause common to many new TV shows. The writers themselves don't know the characters yet, and they're discovering who they are right along with the audience over a period of multiple episodes. Other shows have the same problem. In particular, the first season of "Seinfeld" (only five episodes) felt stilted and meager in the confidence of the writing compared to later seasons. It took some time for to fall into a winning groove. "Cheers" was similar. The characterization felt tentative in the first episode and not quite natural. It took some time for the writers themselves to discover the nuances of the characterizations which fleshed them out into beloved characters.
On the other hand, "Lost" hit an absolute home run on the first episode, but slowly got bogged down in the piling up of mysteries over the seasons until it was virtually impossible to provide a satisfying ending. I call that the "J.J." curse. He knows how to give us a bang-up beginning but can't deliver on a satisfying development over the seasons.
The nature of the medium of television creates these variations of quality over time, whether it's weak episodes that build into praiseworthy hit shows, or a flashy big bang opening that peters out under the incompetent storytelling of the creatives. "Dexter" was another of the latter type.
But there are the rare ones that maintain the quality throughout. "Maxwell in the Middle" was one that was equally hilarious throughout all seasons. So was "Frasier"---but it cheated by building on the development accomplished by "Cheers." Still there have been a gazillion spin-offs that flopped, so the "Frasier" team proved it was well prepared to knock it out of the park every episode. "Six Feet Under" maintained its quality throughout and gave us a brilliant, thoroughly satisfying ending. And of course "Breaking Bad" is probably the best example of them all.
"Babylon 5" also qualifies, but we know the reason why it maintained its quality. The whole five seasons were mapped out in advanced. The producer and the writers knew what they were aiming for all along. That makes me wonder if all the constantly-high-quality-episode shows were also better developed before the first episode went into production.
Film makers don't have the luxury of discovering characters over time. They have to do the work up-front in the screenwriting phase, because they only have one shot to succeed or die. Not counting test screenings, I guess. But doing reshoots is a very expensive way of getting it right.
Season 1 may have been a hot mess but holy crap I miss it, and every season thereafter. I had no idea how good we had it with TNG.
rewatching tng directly after watching voy and ds9 is an experience...
personally, i just take it with a sense of humor, choosing to love it for the quirks and have fun with them, knowing that it'll find its footing eventually.
To be fair, season 1 of Next Generation lay some great foundations for entire Trek universe with some really great episodes. Voyager needed 3 seasons to find its footing, its normal i guess