From: glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Gordon Locke  )
Subject: Re: The old STTOS vs STTNG - sigh!
Summary: I agree! 
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: World
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:49:04 GMT

In article <g92n3258.27.717791965@giraffe.ru.ac.za> g92n3258@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR RL NICOL) writes:
>
>We've had plenty of "Sttng sucks", "The Terrible TOS" on this network, so 
>here are my 2 cents (Yes, we also have cents in SA):
>
>Picard and Data are great characters and played by very capable actors.  
>Stewart and Spiner are probably the best actors Star Trek has had (Besides 
>Nimoy, who ranks along with them).  The characters of Picard, Riker and Data 
>are interesting and I like them all very much, however I don't believe they 
>can seriously replace Kirk, Spock and McCoy, at least unless something is 
>done.  And that is: They are too damn buddy-buddy.  Picard's relationship to 
>Riker is no different from Riker's relationship to Geordi is no different 
>from... or at least any differences isn't as clear-cut as the Kirk-McCoy, 
>Spock-McCoy, Kirk-Spock relationships.  That is where the TOS crew are 
>better - their relationships are unique, yet familiar.  We enjoy the way 
>they interact.  In a scene with Spock and McCoy, we know how they will react 
>to one another.  It varies from the scene with Kirk and Spock.  Whereas in 
>STTNG a scene with Crusher and Riker is no different from the scene with 
>Geordi and Crusher etc.  The two characters who sometimes do break out of 
>the mold are Data and Worf, but this is just because they're not human and 
>therefore do relate differently.  The characters are great - the 
>relationships are BLAND.
>
>As for FX of course STTNG is better, however I still feel that the TOS shots 
>of the Enterprise orbitting the planets (view from behind and front, not 
>side-on) are the best in either series, as is the shot of the Enterprise 
>moving off into the distant stars at the end of each episode.  The best shot 
>yet is the one of the Enterprise heading for the energy barrier in "where no 
>man...".  It's really moving.
>
>Well, that's my bit for what it's worth,
>Ryan.

	 I totally agree!  I was really let down when the Next
Generation show first came out -- I expected better.  It wasn't that the
effects were bad.  That could hardly be said.  The main thing was the
writing.  And hence the characters were weak.  Mind you, they have made
great strides since those first couple of seasons, and I can enjoy about
1 out of every 3 nightly re-run episodes from the seasons since then,
but that's still way below the par established by Star Trek (I don't
feel the need to specify TOS).
	Gene got real writers to do scripts for Star Trek.  Actual
science-fiction writers who were on the cutting edge at the time.  What
episodes of Next Gen. could that claim be made about?  I have never even
seen the writer credited on a TNG show (I probably missed it, but I've
looked several times).  Most of the plots for TNG sound like they were
written by hacks who were in between episodes of `Matlock'.
	Aw, heck -- this is just turning into a juvenile flame.  All I
meant to point out was how much better Next Gen. _should have been_.  If
you're going to have "Star Trek", in the name of the show, you should
not only set it in the same "continuity", but incorporate elements which
made the original good.  It's like a sequel to a movie.  There are some
NG episodes that do this, and I find those are the ones I like the best
(coincidentally enough).  Examples: The Survivors, The Enemy, (both of
which were re-broadcast here recently), and of course Unification.
	I think it just goes to prove what Majel Roddenberry said
regarding Star Trek: "Anything they do after this is imitation." (or
something to that effect).  Source: some Starlog interview quoted in the
Starlog Overpriced-25th-Anniversary-Special.  It's too bad that the
imitation is so often so pale. (IMHO, of course)
	-Gord
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc