From: wombat@eng.umd.edu (Jose Gonzalez)
Subject: Re: Reason why TNG is downhilling, or is it? 
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 00:29:45 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, College of Engineering
Originator: wombat@pepsi.eng.umd.edu

In article <67073@cup.portal.com> Peter_A_David@cup.portal.com writes:

Sheesh.  All these posts today, Peter.  Make your deadlines for the millions 
of comics you write and decide to give yourself Friday off, eh? (-:

>I don't know if "personal conflict" would be such a bad thing for STTNG.
>I've always thought that one of the show's problems is that everyone gets
>along with each other so well.  As opposed to, say, McCoy vs. Spock.
>Sure it became cliched after a while...but at least it was SOMEthing.
>Upping the level of conflict between the characters might go a long way
>towards giving them some depth.

It's amazing how many TNG fans I meet all over the place.  The unlikeliest
people love this show.  And every time you ask them why they like it, their
reasons are always the characters.  It's the *characters* that make the
show.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't learn *anything* about
a character unless he or she is involved in some kind of personal conflict.
It can range from simple internal conflict such as how does a character
sit in their chair (and I bet most of us could show someone how Picard or
Rikers sits in their chairs too) to a more external conflict such as does
Riker relinguish his values to help Worf commit suicide, something Riker
finds atrocious.  You see, I think when people say that TNG doesn't
have any conflict, they've got it wrong.  Conflict is there, it's just
more subtle.  I think it takes more work to write and flesh out those
characters, which in turn results in a better show.  
 
>And all stories...even those exploring other worlds...should still be
>character-driven.  The crew is our POV, our window into the Federation,
>and if there's not some sort of personal involvement (conflict, if you
>will) on their part, it hampers our ability to get into the story.

This is a good guideline most of the time, yes.  But a classic 
short story, "The Most Dangerous Game," has paper-thin characters,
yet it's a great story.  It's the plot that drives the story, and if it's
good enough, it can carry it, just as great characters can carry a bad
story. 

>
>On the other hand, they've announced that they're actually cutting back
>on potential conflict points.  For example, the Riker/Troi history is
>going to be completely swept under the rug, so there goes that potential
>interaction.

Definately.  The short glimpse we've got of it in "Violations" and *ahem*
"Imzadi" makes me think that exploring that relationship could be *very*
interesting indeed.
 
>The 5th season, by the way, was unquestionably better than the 1st and
>2nd.  But it still hasn't approached the 3rd season. 

3rd season was something special.  I don't know if Star Trek, or any show
for that matter, is ever going to equal as many winners as that season
had.  I rank 5th season right about equal with 4th.  It had more exceptional
episodes than 4th, but it had more stinkers too.  It evens out.   


-- 
Jose Gonzalez