@@plutosorbitoutthere You need to watch the whole video as your are not taking everything into context - also no one twisted your arm for money considering all the effort that has gone into this video which you can watch for free - he is an actual human being with feeling and his own point of view get over it.
Lol. I'm re-watching the whole series. On season 3. Ya, it takes a while for characters to settle in. Truely better than anything in the last decade. But, it's still a bit quaint.
when i started watching the cartoon after the first soap i was crying tears of joy hailing satan that my suffering has ended. all the movies are better than the first soap
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.
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.
I watched about half a dozen episodes of season 1, then gave up on it. I watched an episode about halfway through season 2 and liked the episode, so I watched the rest of the series and later caught up on season 1 through repeats. Yep, season 1 was.......not so good. Luckily, Star Trek Voyager started good and stayed good.
I was around your age too when it came out. I was just sooooo elated and happy to be having NEW Star Trek. Yeah, it seemed a little...cerebral at times, but I quickly overlooked it for the excitement of the new ship, new graphics, new SFX, new adventures.
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.
(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.
Just imagine what the story woupd have been, if troi and yar hadn't been accidently swapped between casting and shooting with no time then to fix it. Sirtiss running security with her right hand, Word. Crosby happy in a role she could shine in. All because they mixed up the custom costumes for the wrong characters. @scockery
An example is the lack of a good enemy in the first season. The Ferengi were talked about ominously as this hugely dangerous and malevolent enemy. Yet, when Rodenberry finally trotted them out, they were these silly little gnome-like uber-capitalists. Who were only interested in gold. Gold? Let's just replicate a truckload for them, and tell them to get lost!
I’m working on a rewrite of Star Trek nemesis and the ferenig are stepping up as the films villains. No joke. Tom hardy will still be the villain but he is a Ferengi pirate.
There are things that are not replicable to answer just such questions. And the Ferengi do not use gold as currency nor is there any indication they give it any special value. Gold pressed Latinum is not gold but latinum, with gold merely being used to contain it. And when they do show up in person, the Ferengi ship is a real, credible threat to the Enterprise.
And the Ferengi continued to be a joke until DS9 when they finally got fleshed out and turned into one of the more interesting races who went a long character development arc.
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 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.
I will just add that while there's a fairly clear mapping of parts that were plainly written for the TOS characters onto the TNG characters, there were problems with that. Replacing Spock with Data, McCoy with Crusher, Scotty with LaForge, Sulu with Yar, Chekov with Worf, and Uhura with Troi can approximately work but prevents them from developing their own characters. And for Kirk, they have to split his role between the action hero (Riker) and the commander (Picard), which leaves their lead actor with little to do. And there's no TOS equivalent of Wesley, so he's just sort of there.
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.
The problem is, the writers in season 1 followed to much Gene Roddenberry and his ideas. But they had to evolve from them to get to a good story telling. Gene Roddenberry might have been good in inventing his franchise - but name me ONE Roddenberry written episode that was good...
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.
Thats funny because Quark is possibly my least favorite character in any of the Star Trek shows... Well, I suppose dislike is better than absolute apathy which is what I feel for almost every character from Voyager lol.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 I used to hate Quark, one episode changed that. Rom had gotten a new job, and comes to the bar. Quark immediately replicated him breakfast, and though you could tell he didn't like Rom's new job, he wasn't going to put up more than a token resistance. You could tell though, his dislike came from a genuine concern for Rom. Quark episodes became one of my favorite types of episodes. ... Except "Run Along Home" of course.🤮
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!
I am born 1981, TOS was way before my times. But I watched it, and endured the look & feel of it for the storys sake. And I gotta say, I super enjoyed it. Once I dropped my problems with the props and sillyness of the set and stage quality, it was super fun. They always met weird, interesting and over-the-top creatures, like gods, wanna be gods, alien magicians and all that stuff. It was about the enterprise exploring the unknown. TNG 1 was still the same. It was like TOS with a new crew. That is why I also agree that S1 is really good on it's own. It has compeltey different focus than TNG 3-7. Later on it's about the ppl. But before that, it's about the ship and the what they find in their exploration.
Most of the S1 TNG hate comes from male feminists (the ones who haven't been caught at whatever creepy stuff they are upto behind closed doors yet) and the like. It's too "of it's time" for them to enjoy it. Look at the comments section. Half the complains are "the men were men, the women were women" levels of drivel.
You're not the only one. I love most of Trek when it keeps to Gene's Vision. So many so called "fans" out there, hell bent on destroying the deeper meaning for its very, reason to be, and in the progress, making it no different than any other, visionless, crap, Sci-Fi out there. I wish to goodness I could understand people.
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.
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.
@@chriskoschik391 Yes, Conspiracy was quite good -- better than nearly everything else from season one. Strongt premise, but the writer(s) didn't deliver a satisfying enough conclusion. And why was there no follow-up?
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.
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.
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.
Two words: Gene Roddenberry. The episodes he directly influenced were painfully preachy, boring and sometimes offensive. He treated the season like it was written for a '60s audience. It was not until he began to pull back in season three and let Berman and Piller guide the storyline that the series flourished.
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.
@@kjodleken8810 If we talk about alien cultures that are supposed to show a different world, I find it completely acceptable and even one of the few ways how media can deal wi the subject, as long as the "good guys" do not endorse it or promote it as morally good. For example: The nazi episode is banned in germany. It's completely ridicolous. The episode does not endorse or promote nazism but shows the bad sides of it. If media and art cannot show worlds that are undesirable, we as a society have moved too close to voluntary self-censorship if you ask me. In Code Of Honor, Tasha Yar is doing all decisions autonomsly. She is in control. That's what's important.
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.
MWC makes my stomach feel physically ill to watch. It was a distinctly hateful show. It hates everyone and everything. Women, men, parents, siblings, every relationship and every kind of person. I hate it, lol.
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.
Yes, Roddenberry was a good producer and he knew how to invent the worlds. But his episodes really suck. His movie literally flopped because he put all his money into world building and SFX - but forgot to give the movie a driving story...
@ well, to be fair, it didn’t flop. It was very successful, it just didn’t make much profit because of his profligacy, which is why he was moved off the subsequent movies. He was given the right to read script drafts and give notes, and Nick Meyer/Harve Bennett were free to ignore them. I truly believe he was the person who leaked plot points to fans at conventions - entirely out of spite.
@@ABSOLUTgarbage Yes, Roddenberry hated everything the movie creators did and deliberately tried to sabotage those projects. He despised every element of THE WRATH OF KHAN--the single best thing ever done with Star Trek--and leaked the fact that Spock was going to die in the movie, hoping to spur a fan uprising, but Leonard Nimoy had only agreed to return on the condition that Spock be killed. Nimoy changed his view while working on the movie but one could imagine the harm that could have been done had Roddenberry's antics been successful.
You forget that Rick Berman was single-handedly responsible for almost everything wrong with Voyager, and that his almost complete _lack_ of involvement with DS9 is why DS9 still holds up as the best of the second-gen Trek series. Fuck Rick Berman.
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 do agree what ST TNG season 1 had a rough start but getting to the second half actually starts to become the standard for the series. They clearly worked behind the scenes to make changes as the episodes making roll on.
Good video RJC. Was visiting my folks and showed it to my dad who scoffed and said you were being too critical. I said fine, let's watch an episode. He happened to pick "The Big Goodbye" although the episode where Wesley was sentenced to death looked promising. Not ten minutes in he was checking his phone. He groaned when Wesley announced he was joining the rescue team. We both groaned when the red shirt was shot. We grinned at Lawrence Tierney's guest appearance. I suggested he left to make his shift at the Try and Save. We laughed at Picard's "speech" at the end. We agreed the episode never seemed to end. When all was said and done my dad announced, "Fine, he's right. But rather than waxing eloquently for ten minutes he shoulda just said 'They suck" and moved on." At least my mom thought the episode was great. Thanks from two old Trekkies.
It's common knowledge now that much of the first season and some of the second utilize repurposed Phase II scripts, but even without that knowledge you could tell that the early scripts were stale. The average quality of script writing improved over the 20-odd years between TOS and TNG, not to mention audience sensibilities. On the other hand, early TNG coasted entirely on Trek nostalgia and was still a big hit, so it's hard to argue with success. Star Trek: The Motion Picture, another Phase II reclamation, also suffers from the problems identified in this video, namely the passivity of the crew. The Enterprise and its crew are essentially on a guided tour to V'Ger, at which point the situation basically resolves itself. The only characters that matter are Ilia, who is mostly an automaton, and Decker, who, while human, expresses little agency until around the last scene of the movie.
I like ST:TMP better than most people but I have to agree, the crew was along for the ride for the most part, and that ride was way too long. I will say, Spock was still pivotal in that movie. The Enterprise deployed way before it was ready and was having all kinds of problems (including a fatal malfunction of the transporter and near-fatal engine imbalance). Spock was absolutely key to getting that all under control (which was probably embarrassing for Scotty, he's usually the engineer that saves the day). Spock also decided to go rogue and attempt mind-meld with V'ger. Even though that failed, Spock gained great understanding of V'ger and their situation with V'ger. At the end, it was lucky that Decker was in love with Ilea and plunged headlong into even the outside chance of getting with her again. If Decker didn't do that, somebody would've joined with V'ger and I'll bet that choice would've been ugly (the Ilea-bot probably would've grabbed one of the landing party and forced their hand into the wire connection that Decker made voluntarily).
The other thing about Spock, too, was that he was mildly telepathic and was able to get a read on V'ger because of the immense psychic power emanating from him/it. While the Enterprise was inside the V'ger cloud, he narrated what V'ger was thinking and doing. Otherwise, there would be no way to know that. I have a hunch that Deanna Troi was meant to be a character who did the same thing in STNG but because of the chaos of the first couple of seasons and the fact that writers came and went like the tides, that concept was lost and Deanna never developed in that direction.
@ It wouldn't surprise me if the pitch for Troi was something like "weakly telepathic like Spock but a 180 on emotions". The problem is they started filming before they had a clear role set and boundaries on her abilities. She wasn't the only one with that problem but is the only one where they took six seasons to figure it out.
Every single Star Trek series starts out rather sluggishly. It takes a while for these shows to find their footing. I am thankful that TNG lasted so long because the evolution of the show and the characters is very obvious.
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.
To think that this series started, after a bland Farpoint, with the total crap of Code of Honor and Naked Now is mind-blowing. You're so right, Naked Now was pathetic, to cop out with a rip-off for their SECOND show, ugh! They also knew you couldn't possibly sell that story idea two shows in, so it was just an insult. I ended up loving the show, but I didn't come back to it until about mid 2nd season, when they finally were making it work, so it all worked out🙂
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.
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✌
Excellent video. I think one of the many issues was a lot of the first and second season episodes were recycled scripts that were unused in the original series and the planned Phase II series that didn't happen.
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.
@ That’s an interesting perspective. Unless you’re doing a full-on soap opera, I think it’s *generally* best to focus on a small core of characters (say three to five) and let the recurring characters get developed as the series progresses. So ones that show a certain flair, such as Chief O’Brien - gradually ascend to the core cast, and core characters that aren’t working - like, say, Troi - get phased out and replaced over time. The best example of this is obviously The Simpsons (Which is the best example of pretty much everything) which gradually grew an utterly sprawling cast of characters, to the point where, honestly, they probably could have phased out The Simpsons themselves and just focused on the town as a whole and it would still work. This also worked out really well on two of the three Stargate series.
@mahatmarandy5977 Obrien only became good though when they one, made him relevant by having him be the go to guy on DS9 for repairs, and two, gave him an initial antagonistic relationship to Bashir, which eventually turned into a friendship. Plus they codified who he was as a person. Such as being a former soldier who hated the spoonheads, ect. Otherwise he is really just that guy in the transporter room. In other words, they gave him meaningful purpose, and real meaningful conflict in relation to the other characters in the medium.
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
Yes, very stiff and unsure of their character's traits and perspectives. I think the same goes for 1st season DS9. I actually think Voyager did the best job of the actors being comfortable from the start, maybe they made a concerted effort to concentrate on that aspect. I guess if you don't like that show you could say the characters never progressed beyond their original portrayals, and that could be a fair assessment 🙂
When season 1 came out, i dismissed it as being a cheap copy of the original series. But after watching it later, i saw it was a great show. I judged it too quickly, but i admit that was wrong, i always watch TNG reruns.
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.
When telling people to watch TNG, I do tell them to skip season one. However, over the years TNG season 1 and 2 have become my favorite seasons. I LOVE the camp and the unfinished sets, and seeing the cast so young. The stories are left over from TOS. It's great in it's own way. :)
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.
There is a good reason. First of all a lot of scripts for TNG were "recycled" scrips for TOS and the never made "Star Trek - Phase 2" series. That and the fact that they also kept the TOS formula of 3 Main characters (Picard, Riker, Data) instead of making the whole crew the main characters. A fact that made Denise Crosby also quit after only 1 season since she didn't feel like having much to do. And the production was done mostly in the traditional way with very little exterior shots. Yes, the first season has a very strange look and feel and a slightly "cold" vibe. But to me... THAT is exactly what fascinated me a lot about TNG when i compared it to TOS. And that is why i still like it. Yes, i do love season 1 and 2 a lot because of that whole vibe and VERY 80s feel. Even more so with the old original blurry "edited on video" broadcast masters, which very much enhances that whole vibe. Because that's how i first saw the show as a kid. That being said i am SOOO happy the whole show got properly HD remastered.
It's not so bad as some people think, even the first season has some great episodes. Besides, the first season still is better than any modern Star Trek
TNG season 1 has a unique charm. It's almost a different show. I enjoy it because it was all I had for a while as a kid. My mother got half of the season through a Paramount mail order video program. I watched those tapes over and over.
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.
Season one of TNG is bad? I must have missed that update. I really enjoy the first few seasons of TNG because it has that Star Trek flair; it feels the most like TOS - which is my favourite Trek show. I definitely noticed when Roddenberry left as it lost that unique nature and started becoming my generic - almost as though it was trying to be palatable to general audiences. Season one is also leaps and bounds better than the last season. When I watch or read sci-fi, I don't want something that's palatable for a modern audience - I want something that feels alien or reflective of a time or culture completely unlike our own. I think that's also why modern Trek is so bad - they chase what seems palatable to the wider audience rather than pleasing the audience it already has. As Star Trek goes on, it becomes more diluted and like everything else. That first season of TNG - absolute sci-fi.
I’ll tell you why, but no one will like it. Gene Roddenberry. That is why. He was very involved in getting stng off the ground. He wanted stng to be a natural extension of TOS. It failed miserably, and once new writers and a show runner came in that pulled away from his sphere of influence on the show and made it something of its own. A unique entry in the universe with everyone having their own origin….it became a classic.
Funny how the same thing happened with TOS. At the time it was soon moved to friday afternoon, airing at a time noone wouid watch it. TOS was a failure. Then, over time, it grew on ppl (maybe the hippie generationis at fault? :) ) and it became a classic and "success" yeeeeaeaaaarss later. I think even a DECADE later. Cant remember. Ofc the natural approach would be to try to be as close as possible to TOS, cause you just realized that "you had it". "The timing just wasn't right". I mean, who would say: "Oh look, TOS is now super popular, that old show we did 10y ago!" "Yeah,let's do something completely differernent now and ignore that". :D
Calling the first season "bad" is purely subjective. The problem is, that season specifically, and the show in general is highly cerebral. Even die-hard Trekkies admit this. TNG made people think. TV viewers don't want to think. TNG gained more fans later due to all the action and violence.
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!!
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'd like to add 2 more reasons. 1. Some episodes have been from the planned and abandoned Star Trek: Phase II. They were literally written for another time and other characters. 2. Consequences. You can't just introduce something and then forget about it. Take the episode 'When the Bough Breaks'. The Aldeans can cloak their entire planet and can throw the Enterprise-D several light years without damaging anything. Even if the harmful effects of the planetary shield can not solved, the ability of throwing starships away would have been very useful in the Dominion War at the latest. Or 'Relics'. Finding a functioning Dyson Sphere and exploring how it works can lead to orbital rings, rings from Halo, Ring Worlds and of course more Dyson Spheres. Especially considering the capabilities of Replicators. If the Replicator is the answer to all material needs, the Dyson Sphere and similar concepts are the answer to living space. Of course they forgot about such things, because that would have made future writing and staying within the budget very very difficult.
I think the problems with early TNG are exaggerated. The main issues were possibly the non advance in special effects and ideas which comes from first starting something and working out the kinks. The Last Outpost could be a character driven show as you suggest, however, the point is merely about philosophical development, not Riker himself, or even the races themselves. The episode is channeling a theme explored in original trek which is an advanced philosophically and technologically ancient empire encounters humanity and then judges it: Such as the Organians.
Hey, did you know that "Code of Honor," the 4th episode of season 1, about swarthy anachronistic brutes kidnapping a female member of the crew was written by the same woman as "Emancipation," the 4th episode of season 1 of "Stargate SG-1," which was about swarthy anachronistic brutes kidnapping a female member of the crew? Weird, right? HOW THE HELL DID THAT HAPPEN?
@@Dancestar1981 No, they didn't. That story was a lot more complicated. JMS pitched the idea for Babylon 5 to Paramount, who rejected him. They then made DS9, which is, kinda similar, from a bird's eye view. In this situation it was the same writer on both finished products, and the result was much more similar despite the more different settings and premises. It also differs in that this is explicit injection of cringe fetishes into media at the expense of the audience.
In the case of my favorite TV show, Mystery Science Theater 3000 really didn’t get good until the end of Season Two. By the time production on Season 3 began Best Brains had finally found their footing and what followed was what many MSTies (myself included) consider is the best season of the show. So many great episodes, many of them becoming fan favorites. But if a newer fan tried to start watching the show at Season 1 or even worse Season 0 (which had a budget of $250 and aired on local TV in the Twin Cities area) they would be scratching their heads wondering: “Is this really one of the greatest cult TV comedy shows of all time.” But yes, many TV shows’ first seasons are extremely rough, Seinfeld’s first season was also very rough.
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.
@@kjodleken8810 in Maurice Hurley’s defence- neither Michael Piller, Rick Berman or Jeri Taylor knew anything about sci-fi or Star Trek but that never stopped them improving TNG or creating DS9 and VOY. I think Hurley’s problem is that he’s a slash and burn manager in a season that needed a guiding hand.
I have watched many people reacting to TNG. They all say people told them season 1 is very bad but they end up enjoying it. I say season 1 is not bad. The other seasons are just better.
The Neutral Zone (episode 26) is one of my favorite episodes. Most of the other episodes, nah, not so much. But you're right, the other seasons are just better. What's interesting is that each season has some truly groan-inducing episodes, but you don't notice them as much because they're surrounded by so many better episodes. It's a matter of comparison.
Anyone who thinks the first one or two seasons of TNG are "awful" or "so bad" (clickbait opinions) please watch any of Kurtzman Trek for actual awfulness. That makes early TNG look like Shakespeare. Section 31 appears to be the icing in the rancid :Kurtzman cake.
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.
They landed on their feet for S2, it took them one season only to adjust to rebooting a tv concept that hadn't had a tv show in over 20 years. Look at modern trek, still rubbish after five seasons.
“We’ll always have Paris” is a character study of Picard set against a weird time travel plot. The whole theme of time and having a second chance at moments in time runs through the whole episode. Picard regrets leaving the lady on earth without saying goodbye but he picks career over love. This is elemental to the Picard character.
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...
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.
It's funny how the prime directive went from: "This is major plot hook, and we rather sacrifice crewmember than violate it" to "Oh, yeah, the prime directive. Who wrote that again? Was it important?" :D
Season 1 isn't all bad, As it has some entertaining & worthy episodes, Plus Season 1 is like a masterpiece compared to all of the post Enterprise modern series.
@ I see nothing wrong with it. Actually, my job title is Operations Specialist. Operations is probably just as interchangeable with Facilities or Maintenance. If one of the LCARS panels burns out, if the turbolift needs lubrication, or if the ship intercom systems are glitchy, etc, then Ops takes care of it.
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.
As some people have said here the first few episodes of most science fiction series are challenging for both the writers and actors. Actors still do not know how to react and writers what kind of stories will work. If you look closely at the first 12 or so episodes you see the actors strugling with dialogue and even how to walk. Some of them overacting badly like Marina Sirtis.
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 RUclips) . All good things.... take time to get good.
But I get why it was cancelled. I desperately tried to enjoy that show. But I simply didn't - for many reasons. I couldn't make it through the whole season and was not at all shocked that there was no season 2.
It was a new show and these actors started working together for the first time, having to get comfortable with each other and find a niche. But the acting was not all that good at first.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
HELP THE CHANNEL GROW: www.patreon.com/rowanjcoleman
Have you seen the documentary Chaos on the Bridge that gives a good account of why the first 2 seasons failed
You slam season one and want money? For sure no.
@@plutosorbitoutthere You need to watch the whole video as your are not taking everything into context - also no one twisted your arm for money considering all the effort that has gone into this video which you can watch for free - he is an actual human being with feeling and his own point of view get over it.
You make excellent points. Up to now, I always viewed TNG as "cheap looking", as if there was a very low budget to produce each episode.
Why are you yelling at me
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
To all of us that complained about season 1 of TNG, go watch section 31 and you'll cry tears of blood thanking the dear lord for season 1 of TNG.
Lol. I'm re-watching the whole series. On season 3. Ya, it takes a while for characters to settle in. Truely better than anything in the last decade. But, it's still a bit quaint.
We didn’t know how good we had it
@@kotzpenner we did, pukebum! Remember thinking TNG was the best thing ever done, when it was on german television.
@@kotzpenner Two wongs don't make it white. Wait, what?
when i started watching the cartoon after the first soap i was crying tears of joy hailing satan that my suffering has ended. all the movies are better than the first soap
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.
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.
I watched about half a dozen episodes of season 1, then gave up on it. I watched an episode about halfway through season 2 and liked the episode, so I watched the rest of the series and later caught up on season 1 through repeats. Yep, season 1 was.......not so good. Luckily, Star Trek Voyager started good and stayed good.
@@jimdigitalvideo " Luckily, Star Trek Voyager started good and stayed good."
( O_O )
I was around your age too when it came out. I was just sooooo elated and happy to be having NEW Star Trek. Yeah, it seemed a little...cerebral at times, but I quickly overlooked it for the excitement of the new ship, new graphics, new SFX, new adventures.
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...
TNG is gonna be 40 very soon. And it makes me sad.
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.
(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.
Just imagine what the story woupd have been, if troi and yar hadn't been accidently swapped between casting and shooting with no time then to fix it. Sirtiss running security with her right hand, Word. Crosby happy in a role she could shine in.
All because they mixed up the custom costumes for the wrong characters.
@scockery
Yep
Fking nailed it, larry ! 👍
An example is the lack of a good enemy in the first season. The Ferengi were talked about ominously as this hugely dangerous and malevolent enemy. Yet, when Rodenberry finally trotted them out, they were these silly little gnome-like uber-capitalists. Who were only interested in gold. Gold? Let's just replicate a truckload for them, and tell them to get lost!
I’m working on a rewrite of Star Trek nemesis and the ferenig are stepping up as the films villains. No joke. Tom hardy will still be the villain but he is a Ferengi pirate.
There are things that are not replicable to answer just such questions. And the Ferengi do not use gold as currency nor is there any indication they give it any special value. Gold pressed Latinum is not gold but latinum, with gold merely being used to contain it.
And when they do show up in person, the Ferengi ship is a real, credible threat to the Enterprise.
And the Ferengi continued to be a joke until DS9 when they finally got fleshed out and turned into one of the more interesting races who went a long character development arc.
@ they are the ultimate threat.
Cool ship designs though.
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).
Look at DS9. Sisko grew a beard AND shaved his head. So 200% improvement
And Family Ties! Everyone knows FT got much better after Michael Gross grew the beard.
Is Growing The Beard the opposite of Jumping The Shark or Nuking The Fridge?
I thought a beard was a woman a gay dude marries when he thinks it will disguise his sexuality. Hi president Obama!
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.
I will just add that while there's a fairly clear mapping of parts that were plainly written for the TOS characters onto the TNG characters, there were problems with that. Replacing Spock with Data, McCoy with Crusher, Scotty with LaForge, Sulu with Yar, Chekov with Worf, and Uhura with Troi can approximately work but prevents them from developing their own characters. And for Kirk, they have to split his role between the action hero (Riker) and the commander (Picard), which leaves their lead actor with little to do. And there's no TOS equivalent of Wesley, so he's just sort of there.
@@thexalon And Wesley was simply there for 4 seasons. They finally jettisoned him, and the real stories could be told!
@@joelellis7035 Weasley's good episode was the academy accident where he actually put in the situation of a believable person.
The only phase 2 scripts used for TNG were The Child (season 2), and Devil's Due (season 4).
That double light-tube thing at 0:25 was in Airplane 2. Yes, this is an important fact, leave me alone.
In what context was it included into such a film? It's trying to be some futuristic science room kinda thing, I guess, here.
Well heck the famous table in Engineering in TNG is the same exact table that you Starfleet officers and such around in ST4.
And The Last Starfighter and others! Search “The Most Important Device in the Universe”
It was also at Star Command HQ in *The Last Starfighter*
Among many other appearances 👍
@@Archangelglenn That's known as the "pool table."
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.
The problem is, the writers in season 1 followed to much Gene Roddenberry and his ideas. But they had to evolve from them to get to a good story telling. Gene Roddenberry might have been good in inventing his franchise - but name me ONE Roddenberry written episode that was good...
@@acmenipponair "Name ONE Roddenberry episode that was good"
Mudd's women.
Killing off Tasha Yar was one of the biggest sins of early TNG. I'd have loved to keep her in the show for a long time.
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.
Thats funny because Quark is possibly my least favorite character in any of the Star Trek shows... Well, I suppose dislike is better than absolute apathy which is what I feel for almost every character from Voyager lol.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 I used to hate Quark, one episode changed that. Rom had gotten a new job, and comes to the bar. Quark immediately replicated him breakfast, and though you could tell he didn't like Rom's new job, he wasn't going to put up more than a token resistance. You could tell though, his dislike came from a genuine concern for Rom. Quark episodes became one of my favorite types of episodes.
...
Except "Run Along Home" of course.🤮
"The Arsenal of Freedom" is one of the best S1 episodes, because: 1. Picard does something and 2. Geordi does something.
And we learn about the good ship Lollipop. It’s a banger episode.
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
I am born 1981, TOS was way before my times. But I watched it, and endured the look & feel of it for the storys sake. And I gotta say, I super enjoyed it. Once I dropped my problems with the props and sillyness of the set and stage quality, it was super fun. They always met weird, interesting and over-the-top creatures, like gods, wanna be gods, alien magicians and all that stuff. It was about the enterprise exploring the unknown. TNG 1 was still the same. It was like TOS with a new crew. That is why I also agree that S1 is really good on it's own. It has compeltey different focus than TNG 3-7. Later on it's about the ppl. But before that, it's about the ship and the what they find in their exploration.
I live every season of tng
Most of the S1 TNG hate comes from male feminists (the ones who haven't been caught at whatever creepy stuff they are upto behind closed doors yet) and the like. It's too "of it's time" for them to enjoy it. Look at the comments section. Half the complains are "the men were men, the women were women" levels of drivel.
You're not the only one. I love most of Trek when it keeps to Gene's Vision. So many so called "fans" out there, hell bent on destroying the deeper meaning for its very, reason to be, and in the progress, making it no different than any other, visionless, crap, Sci-Fi out there. I wish to goodness I could understand people.
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.
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.
You're excused. Everybody is wrong, sometimes.
Conspiracy was the first really good episode for me, albeit a weird one. But you’re correct, the Klingon Riker episode is the next super good one!
@@chriskoschik391 Yes, Conspiracy was quite good -- better than nearly everything else from season one. Strongt premise, but the writer(s) didn't deliver a satisfying enough conclusion. And why was there no follow-up?
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
I'm a Trekkie, but when I recently wanted to re-watch Encounter at Farpoint after many years, half way through I just had to stop, it was so cringy...
I'm a trekkie, but when I recently tried to read this comment I had to stop halfway though.
Too cringy.
@amalekedomite Good one 👍🏼
Agreed, it was awful.
I skipped the entire first season the last time I watched the series through
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.
You can understand, in retrospect, why Jonathan Frakes kept the Riker beard. It’s very good luck.
It looks great on him
Robbie McNeil had to shave his for Voyager
Once you go beard, you don't go back lol
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.
Two words: Gene Roddenberry. The episodes he directly influenced were painfully preachy, boring and sometimes offensive. He treated the season like it was written for a '60s audience. It was not until he began to pull back in season three and let Berman and Piller guide the storyline that the series flourished.
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.
@@kjodleken8810 If we talk about alien cultures that are supposed to show a different world, I find it completely acceptable and even one of the few ways how media can deal wi the subject, as long as the "good guys" do not endorse it or promote it as morally good. For example: The nazi episode is banned in germany. It's completely ridicolous. The episode does not endorse or promote nazism but shows the bad sides of it. If media and art cannot show worlds that are undesirable, we as a society have moved too close to voluntary self-censorship if you ask me. In Code Of Honor, Tasha Yar is doing all decisions autonomsly. She is in control. That's what's important.
BRAIN AND BRAIN! WHAT IS BRAIN???
Thought The Way to Eden was considered the worst...
Perhaps a...dishonorable...mention?
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.
Isn't the MWC example more like Flanderization though?
MWC makes my stomach feel physically ill to watch. It was a distinctly hateful show. It hates everyone and everything. Women, men, parents, siblings, every relationship and every kind of person. I hate it, lol.
@skeetsmcgrew3282 hateful? Wow you're living in a different reality
As plenty of others have said, Season 1 (and 2) flaws are simply down to one reason:
Roddenberry...
For some it's "flaws" for others, like me, it's the original Star Trek formula. :D
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.
Yes, Roddenberry was a good producer and he knew how to invent the worlds. But his episodes really suck. His movie literally flopped because he put all his money into world building and SFX - but forgot to give the movie a driving story...
@ well, to be fair, it didn’t flop. It was very successful, it just didn’t make much profit because of his profligacy, which is why he was moved off the subsequent movies. He was given the right to read script drafts and give notes, and Nick Meyer/Harve Bennett were free to ignore them. I truly believe he was the person who leaked plot points to fans at conventions - entirely out of spite.
@@ABSOLUTgarbage Yes, Roddenberry hated everything the movie creators did and deliberately tried to sabotage those projects. He despised every element of THE WRATH OF KHAN--the single best thing ever done with Star Trek--and leaked the fact that Spock was going to die in the movie, hoping to spur a fan uprising, but Leonard Nimoy had only agreed to return on the condition that Spock be killed. Nimoy changed his view while working on the movie but one could imagine the harm that could have been done had Roddenberry's antics been successful.
You forget that Rick Berman was single-handedly responsible for almost everything wrong with Voyager, and that his almost complete _lack_ of involvement with DS9 is why DS9 still holds up as the best of the second-gen Trek series.
Fuck Rick Berman.
Still x100 better than anything Kurtzman’s has been involved with.
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 do agree what ST TNG season 1 had a rough start but getting to the second half actually starts to become the standard for the series. They clearly worked behind the scenes to make changes as the episodes making roll on.
Note the Alex Kurtzman: A character having a traumatic back story doesn't automatically make them an interesting character.
The first season has its flaws, but it captured my fifteen-year-old interest and won me as a lifetime fan of the series.
STNG season 1 is better than all seasons of Discovery and Picard.
Agreed. Season 1 isn't great but it's still better than modern Trek.
I'm rewatching and at S3, and they are MILES ahead of modern drivel.
Better than Discovery and Picard? Not really a high bar there, but yeah... pretty much.
Does that include Season Three of Picard???
Good video RJC. Was visiting my folks and showed it to my dad who scoffed and said you were being too critical. I said fine, let's watch an episode. He happened to pick "The Big Goodbye" although the episode where Wesley was sentenced to death looked promising. Not ten minutes in he was checking his phone. He groaned when Wesley announced he was joining the rescue team. We both groaned when the red shirt was shot. We grinned at Lawrence Tierney's guest appearance. I suggested he left to make his shift at the Try and Save. We laughed at Picard's "speech" at the end. We agreed the episode never seemed to end. When all was said and done my dad announced, "Fine, he's right. But rather than waxing eloquently for ten minutes he shoulda just said 'They suck" and moved on." At least my mom thought the episode was great. Thanks from two old Trekkies.
It's common knowledge now that much of the first season and some of the second utilize repurposed Phase II scripts, but even without that knowledge you could tell that the early scripts were stale. The average quality of script writing improved over the 20-odd years between TOS and TNG, not to mention audience sensibilities. On the other hand, early TNG coasted entirely on Trek nostalgia and was still a big hit, so it's hard to argue with success.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture, another Phase II reclamation, also suffers from the problems identified in this video, namely the passivity of the crew. The Enterprise and its crew are essentially on a guided tour to V'Ger, at which point the situation basically resolves itself. The only characters that matter are Ilia, who is mostly an automaton, and Decker, who, while human, expresses little agency until around the last scene of the movie.
I like ST:TMP better than most people but I have to agree, the crew was along for the ride for the most part, and that ride was way too long. I will say, Spock was still pivotal in that movie. The Enterprise deployed way before it was ready and was having all kinds of problems (including a fatal malfunction of the transporter and near-fatal engine imbalance). Spock was absolutely key to getting that all under control (which was probably embarrassing for Scotty, he's usually the engineer that saves the day). Spock also decided to go rogue and attempt mind-meld with V'ger. Even though that failed, Spock gained great understanding of V'ger and their situation with V'ger. At the end, it was lucky that Decker was in love with Ilea and plunged headlong into even the outside chance of getting with her again. If Decker didn't do that, somebody would've joined with V'ger and I'll bet that choice would've been ugly (the Ilea-bot probably would've grabbed one of the landing party and forced their hand into the wire connection that Decker made voluntarily).
The other thing about Spock, too, was that he was mildly telepathic and was able to get a read on V'ger because of the immense psychic power emanating from him/it. While the Enterprise was inside the V'ger cloud, he narrated what V'ger was thinking and doing. Otherwise, there would be no way to know that. I have a hunch that Deanna Troi was meant to be a character who did the same thing in STNG but because of the chaos of the first couple of seasons and the fact that writers came and went like the tides, that concept was lost and Deanna never developed in that direction.
@ It wouldn't surprise me if the pitch for Troi was something like "weakly telepathic like Spock but a 180 on emotions". The problem is they started filming before they had a clear role set and boundaries on her abilities. She wasn't the only one with that problem but is the only one where they took six seasons to figure it out.
Every single Star Trek series starts out rather sluggishly. It takes a while for these shows to find their footing. I am thankful that TNG lasted so long because the evolution of the show and the characters is very obvious.
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.
TNG Season 1 was fantastic, fresh, innovative and better written than anything Star Trek has put out in the last 10 years.
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.
To think that this series started, after a bland Farpoint, with the total crap of Code of Honor and Naked Now is mind-blowing. You're so right, Naked Now was pathetic, to cop out with a rip-off for their SECOND show, ugh! They also knew you couldn't possibly sell that story idea two shows in, so it was just an insult. I ended up loving the show, but I didn't come back to it until about mid 2nd season, when they finally were making it work, so it all worked out🙂
This is total BS. I saw the first season in 1990 and totally loved it and was hooked.
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.
It isn’t. Season 1 alone is still some of the greatest scifi ever. It is just that it got even greater after that. TNG is a legendary show.
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✌
Excellent video. I think one of the many issues was a lot of the first and second season episodes were recycled scripts that were unused in the original series and the planned Phase II series that didn't happen.
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.
@ That’s an interesting perspective. Unless you’re doing a full-on soap opera, I think it’s *generally* best to focus on a small core of characters (say three to five) and let the recurring characters get developed as the series progresses. So ones that show a certain flair, such as Chief O’Brien - gradually ascend to the core cast, and core characters that aren’t working - like, say, Troi - get phased out and replaced over time.
The best example of this is obviously The Simpsons (Which is the best example of pretty much everything) which gradually grew an utterly sprawling cast of characters, to the point where, honestly, they probably could have phased out The Simpsons themselves and just focused on the town as a whole and it would still work. This also worked out really well on two of the three Stargate series.
@ Really? How come?
@mahatmarandy5977 Obrien only became good though when they one, made him relevant by having him be the go to guy on DS9 for repairs, and two, gave him an initial antagonistic relationship to Bashir, which eventually turned into a friendship. Plus they codified who he was as a person. Such as being a former soldier who hated the spoonheads, ect.
Otherwise he is really just that guy in the transporter room.
In other words, they gave him meaningful purpose, and real meaningful conflict in relation to the other characters in the medium.
The Enterprise crew are explorers, observers. They're not supposed to affect change everywhere they go. The first season conveys that nicely I think.
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
They were incredibly stiff. I just couldn't get into it.
Yes, very stiff and unsure of their character's traits and perspectives. I think the same goes for 1st season DS9. I actually think Voyager did the best job of the actors being comfortable from the start, maybe they made a concerted effort to concentrate on that aspect. I guess if you don't like that show you could say the characters never progressed beyond their original portrayals, and that could be a fair assessment 🙂
When season 1 came out, i dismissed it as being a cheap copy of the original series. But after watching it later, i saw it was a great show. I judged it too quickly, but i admit that was wrong, i always watch TNG reruns.
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.
When telling people to watch TNG, I do tell them to skip season one. However, over the years TNG season 1 and 2 have become my favorite seasons. I LOVE the camp and the unfinished sets, and seeing the cast so young. The stories are left over from TOS. It's great in it's own way. :)
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.
There is a good reason. First of all a lot of scripts for TNG were "recycled" scrips for TOS and the never made "Star Trek - Phase 2" series. That and the fact that they also kept the TOS formula of 3 Main characters (Picard, Riker, Data) instead of making the whole crew the main characters. A fact that made Denise Crosby also quit after only 1 season since she didn't feel like having much to do. And the production was done mostly in the traditional way with very little exterior shots. Yes, the first season has a very strange look and feel and a slightly "cold" vibe. But to me... THAT is exactly what fascinated me a lot about TNG when i compared it to TOS. And that is why i still like it. Yes, i do love season 1 and 2 a lot because of that whole vibe and VERY 80s feel. Even more so with the old original blurry "edited on video" broadcast masters, which very much enhances that whole vibe. Because that's how i first saw the show as a kid. That being said i am SOOO happy the whole show got properly HD remastered.
It's not so bad as some people think, even the first season has some great episodes. Besides, the first season still is better than any modern Star Trek
TNG season 1 has a unique charm. It's almost a different show. I enjoy it because it was all I had for a while as a kid. My mother got half of the season through a Paramount mail order video program. I watched those tapes over and over.
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.
Season one of TNG is bad? I must have missed that update. I really enjoy the first few seasons of TNG because it has that Star Trek flair; it feels the most like TOS - which is my favourite Trek show. I definitely noticed when Roddenberry left as it lost that unique nature and started becoming my generic - almost as though it was trying to be palatable to general audiences. Season one is also leaps and bounds better than the last season. When I watch or read sci-fi, I don't want something that's palatable for a modern audience - I want something that feels alien or reflective of a time or culture completely unlike our own. I think that's also why modern Trek is so bad - they chase what seems palatable to the wider audience rather than pleasing the audience it already has. As Star Trek goes on, it becomes more diluted and like everything else. That first season of TNG - absolute sci-fi.
I’ll tell you why, but no one will like it. Gene Roddenberry. That is why. He was very involved in getting stng off the ground. He wanted stng to be a natural extension of TOS. It failed miserably, and once new writers and a show runner came in that pulled away from his sphere of influence on the show and made it something of its own. A unique entry in the universe with everyone having their own origin….it became a classic.
Funny how the same thing happened with TOS. At the time it was soon moved to friday afternoon, airing at a time noone wouid watch it. TOS was a failure. Then, over time, it grew on ppl (maybe the hippie generationis at fault? :) ) and it became a classic and "success" yeeeeaeaaaarss later. I think even a DECADE later. Cant remember. Ofc the natural approach would be to try to be as close as possible to TOS, cause you just realized that "you had it". "The timing just wasn't right". I mean, who would say: "Oh look, TOS is now super popular, that old show we did 10y ago!" "Yeah,let's do something completely differernent now and ignore that". :D
Have a bit of respect. Roddenberry invented TNG. He created the entire show!
@@ejkalegal3145 It happens sometimes that the creator of a great fictional world isn't the best person to actually tell its stories.
@@jdotoz Roddenberry told plenty of great stories. I think season 1 is great - it is unique with some excellent stories. I enjoyed it very much.
@@ejkalegal3145 I don't think there's much dispute that however good season 1 is, it doesn't stand up to the later seasons.
Calling the first season "bad" is purely subjective. The problem is, that season specifically, and the show in general is highly cerebral. Even die-hard Trekkies admit this. TNG made people think. TV viewers don't want to think. TNG gained more fans later due to all the action and violence.
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!!
Season 1 TNG is still better than the characters sounding like Millenials with casual cursing etc.
I thought season 1 is very underrated. There's lots to enjoy in season 1.
Honestly, what irritated me was how the Enterprise got its A** kicked continuously!!!!
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'd like to add 2 more reasons.
1. Some episodes have been from the planned and abandoned Star Trek: Phase II. They were literally written for another time and other characters.
2. Consequences. You can't just introduce something and then forget about it.
Take the episode 'When the Bough Breaks'. The Aldeans can cloak their entire planet and can throw the Enterprise-D several light years without damaging anything. Even if the harmful effects of the planetary shield can not solved, the ability of throwing starships away would have been very useful in the Dominion War at the latest.
Or 'Relics'. Finding a functioning Dyson Sphere and exploring how it works can lead to orbital rings, rings from Halo, Ring Worlds and of course more Dyson Spheres. Especially considering the capabilities of Replicators. If the Replicator is the answer to all material needs, the Dyson Sphere and similar concepts are the answer to living space.
Of course they forgot about such things, because that would have made future writing and staying within the budget very very difficult.
There were some enjoyable episodes in S1. There were some bad ones to be sure.
"11001001" and "The Big Goodbye" were really good. With some tiny tweaks they could have aired those episodes in any season.
I always thought season 1 sucked because Tasha Yar is terrible and Riker had no beard. Both were fixed in Season 2 and beyond.
"Sci-fi spectacle is no substitute for good drama" - Disney Star Ware are you listening!?
I always assumed Riker's beard was a factor!
I think the problems with early TNG are exaggerated. The main issues were possibly the non advance in special effects and ideas which comes from first starting something and working out the kinks. The Last Outpost could be a character driven show as you suggest, however, the point is merely about philosophical development, not Riker himself, or even the races themselves. The episode is channeling a theme explored in original trek which is an advanced philosophically and technologically ancient empire encounters humanity and then judges it: Such as the Organians.
Hey, did you know that "Code of Honor," the 4th episode of season 1, about swarthy anachronistic brutes kidnapping a female member of the crew was written by the same woman as "Emancipation," the 4th episode of season 1 of "Stargate SG-1," which was about swarthy anachronistic brutes kidnapping a female member of the crew?
Weird, right? HOW THE HELL DID THAT HAPPEN?
Look at DS9 and Babylon 5 very similar same writer
@@Dancestar1981 No, they didn't. That story was a lot more complicated. JMS pitched the idea for Babylon 5 to Paramount, who rejected him. They then made DS9, which is, kinda similar, from a bird's eye view.
In this situation it was the same writer on both finished products, and the result was much more similar despite the more different settings and premises.
It also differs in that this is explicit injection of cringe fetishes into media at the expense of the audience.
If you think that's bad, look at the Irish stereotypes in season 2. My lord!
The first season of most shows is rough. They are still figuring it out. It's not that rare.
In the case of my favorite TV show, Mystery Science Theater 3000 really didn’t get good until the end of Season Two. By the time production on Season 3 began Best Brains had finally found their footing and what followed was what many MSTies (myself included) consider is the best season of the show. So many great episodes, many of them becoming fan favorites.
But if a newer fan tried to start watching the show at Season 1 or even worse Season 0 (which had a budget of $250 and aired on local TV in the Twin Cities area) they would be scratching their heads wondering:
“Is this really one of the greatest cult TV comedy shows of all time.”
But yes, many TV shows’ first seasons are extremely rough, Seinfeld’s first season was also very rough.
I'm glad they identified what wasn't working out fast
It wasn't bad, it just got much better in seasons 3+.
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.
@@kjodleken8810 in Maurice Hurley’s defence- neither Michael Piller, Rick Berman or Jeri Taylor knew anything about sci-fi or Star Trek but that never stopped them improving TNG or creating DS9 and VOY. I think Hurley’s problem is that he’s a slash and burn manager in a season that needed a guiding hand.
It's still better than basically everything we're getting since 2009
I have watched many people reacting to TNG. They all say people told them season 1 is very bad but they end up enjoying it. I say season 1 is not bad. The other seasons are just better.
The Neutral Zone (episode 26) is one of my favorite episodes. Most of the other episodes, nah, not so much. But you're right, the other seasons are just better. What's interesting is that each season has some truly groan-inducing episodes, but you don't notice them as much because they're surrounded by so many better episodes. It's a matter of comparison.
Anyone who thinks the first one or two seasons of TNG are "awful" or "so bad" (clickbait opinions) please watch any of Kurtzman Trek for actual awfulness. That makes early TNG look like Shakespeare. Section 31 appears to be the icing in the rancid :Kurtzman cake.
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.
Several episodes in the 1st season looked like the original series with plot lines and characters.
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.
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.
3:42 Fun fact: Aristotle says almost this EXACT thing in the Poetics.
That's exactly where I got the idea from.
They landed on their feet for S2, it took them one season only to adjust to rebooting a tv concept that hadn't had a tv show in over 20 years. Look at modern trek, still rubbish after five seasons.
Well, that's an easy answer. It's because Riker didn't have his beard yet.
“We’ll always have Paris” is a character study of Picard set against a weird time travel plot. The whole theme of time and having a second chance at moments in time runs through the whole episode. Picard regrets leaving the lady on earth without saying goodbye but he picks career over love. This is elemental to the Picard character.
It's the Beard....
I’d say it’s because they wanted to replicate the tone and style of TOS and based on the era it was out of place.
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...
I actually really enjoy Season 1 of TNG. I enjoy seeing how the characters evolve. It's one of my fav seasons.
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.
It's funny how the prime directive went from: "This is major plot hook, and we rather sacrifice crewmember than violate it" to "Oh, yeah, the prime directive. Who wrote that again? Was it important?" :D
Season 1 isn't all bad, As it has some entertaining & worthy episodes, Plus Season 1 is like a masterpiece compared to all of the post Enterprise modern series.
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.
@@LoyaFrostwind I never liked 'Operations' tbh. They eliminated communications but had the vague 'operations' as a position?
@ I see nothing wrong with it. Actually, my job title is Operations Specialist. Operations is probably just as interchangeable with Facilities or Maintenance. If one of the LCARS panels burns out, if the turbolift needs lubrication, or if the ship intercom systems are glitchy, etc, then Ops takes care of it.
still better than all 5 seasons of discovery lol!
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.
As some people have said here the first few episodes of most science fiction series are challenging for both the writers and actors. Actors still do not know how to react and writers what kind of stories will work. If you look closely at the first 12 or so episodes you see the actors strugling with dialogue and even how to walk. Some of them overacting badly like Marina Sirtis.
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 RUclips) . All good things.... take time to get good.
But I get why it was cancelled. I desperately tried to enjoy that show. But I simply didn't - for many reasons. I couldn't make it through the whole season and was not at all shocked that there was no season 2.
TNG was fortunate it had the Star Trek brand in front of it otherwise the expense wouldn't have been justified.
It was a new show and these actors started working together for the first time, having to get comfortable with each other and find a niche. But the acting was not all that good at first.