Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evildmguy" data-source="post: 540954" data-attributes="member: 6092">If I mayWithout being defensive, as everyone is allowed their opinion, I think that TNG had more obstacles than even TOS and did as well as it could for its time.  Let me explain where I am coming from and why I think that.  TV is an evolution.  Today, things are aired that would have gotten X ratings 50 years ago.  They wouldn't have been suitable for TV.  For example, congress, hot on the heels of McCarthy, actually passed a decency act about what could be shown on TV.  That's why no parents in the 50s shows ever slept in the same bed!  TV, especially non SciFi, also has NEVER accurately depicted real life.  Ever.  While it is good fantasy, I think people forget that TV *doesn't* try and be real.  In some cases, it is because real life is too strange to accurately show.  In other cases, its because life is too complicated to show.  I say that non SciFi only because in SciFi, usually there aren't unrealistic love triangles or everyone sleeping with everyone that you get in dramas.  While there might be tension, usually SciFi doesn't cross that boundary.  (And when they do, X-Files, is usually when the show "jumps the shark".)  The other thing to remember is that TV is what Marx would call the opiate of masses today.  It is the Roman equivalent of the arena.  It keeps most people, myself included, entertained and happy.  In including myself, though, I try and stay away from garbage.  Entertaining SciFi and character developing series are what draw me to TV.  Not mindless banter that some Exec thinks is good TV.  ("People watch the crap on TV for the same reason that Eskimoes eat blubber.  *It's the only thing on the Arctic buffet.*"  Dennis Miller, ranting about how TV is bad because, in his opinion, that's what execs think people want.)Anyway, I mention all of that as background because I think that TNG had to fight a LOT more.  What we don't realize is that the 40s - 60s was actually TVs infancy.  Especially the late 50s and the 60s.  It wasn't until then that TVs were household things.  During this time, there were little controls, until Congress came along.  So, Trek in the 60s had to worry about how they did what they did but they could still get away with a lot, especially in terms of social commentary.  When we jump ahead to the 80s, TV is even more regulated, although we are still several years from the TV-14, MA, etc. ratings that are now common, there were more controls.  (Ed Meese, anyone?)  So, the new Trek series has to work within the framework of the 80s.  The new Trek also has a double bladed sword to contend with, the fans.  The fans were starved for Trek, as the movies showed, but they also wanted a good show in Trek.  So, TNG was a sure thing that would also get more criticism than anything else.I use that to explain the first season.  The first season is so similar to TOS in how they structured the shows.  This is because I think they wanted to go with a "tried and true" concept that TOS had.  The format is just too close to TOS and in that way, that is how TNG pays homage to TOS.  There are many other factors, of course.  Since it was syndicated, there is a LOT of pressure from the parent company to make independent shows.  That allows a viewer to start watching at any time and not feel as if they missed something.  (If you have ever heard any commentary on TNG or even B5, there is a LOT of pressure to have stand alone shows.)  Now, as we have seen TV evolve (and it would be a very interesting thing to argue how things evolve.  Could we have had the TV we have now in the 70s?  Or does what we have now represent the evolution that had to occur to be where we are now?  And of course, this can go to many different areas.)  we are seeing shows do very different things.  In that regards, this is possibly the one area that Trek was not the first show to do that kind of continuity.  B5 was.  I think, more than anything else, that B5 was the show that showed that a series can be successful, even if a viewer can't jump in to a late season and follow what is going on.  IIRC, I don't think that DS9 had this continuity until after two or three seasons.  At least, I don't remember it from the seasons that I watched.  It certainly wasn't better or worse than TNGs.  From what I have heard, it got much better in the later seasons.  So, to finally end this rave on TV, as I like the progression and I like that shows have continuity now, the reason that I don't like Voyager is because it could have had the best continuity and it had the worst.  TNG didn't have the best, I agree, but as I hoped I have explained, I don't think the times were ready for that kind of show.  Therefore, Enterprise wins with me because it is following that trend of having strong continuity while also honoring TOS and the other shows while still being its own show.  Although, I too want to see more with the "myth" episodes of the Suliban and find out what is going on.  I was hoping they could deal with the temporal cold war more in the second season than they are.  I know that I am probably making things more complicated than they are.  I don't see conspiracies in everything but I do see an interconnected-ness that does affect how things like TV series develop.Sorry for being so long winded and preachy.  That wasn't my intent but I really like this discussion.btw, it was my fault this was resurrected.  I found a link to it from somewhere else and just had to respond.Thanks!edgopiate</blockquote>

Verification