The great irony about Roddenberry and TNG incompetence

Captain Picard's Hair · Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:59 pm

Roddenberry himself served in war! And was decorated for his actions in WWII!!

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:31 pm

That would explain why TOS was so good when it came to talking about war! What happened to TNG? Was he away for to long maybe?

Captain Picard's Hair · Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:51 pm

Actually, I believe it was TNG which was more true to his vision than TOS.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:11 am

But in TNG no one understood TACTICS!

Blackstar the Chakat · Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:14 am

Deepcrush wrote:But in TNG no one understood TACTICS!

That wasn't the point of TNG. I hate it when people only care about the battles and action. TNG was to show humanities potential.

Jordanis · Post by **Jordanis** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:38 am

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Deepcrush wrote:But in TNG no one understood TACTICS!
That wasn't the point of TNG. I hate it when people only care about the battles and action. TNG was to show humanities potential.

That doesn't mean you have to show tactics that are very evidently stupid. It's just lazy writing.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:16 am

Just because he wanted humanity to grow in the show doesn't mean they all have to be about a tactic driven as a blind russian general. Their skills for science are great to see but in everything else there has been a huge drop in IQ! Wars in TNG are just the "Highland Charge of the Spacemen!" What kind of growth for a race is that?

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:50 am

The reason TOS was, well, more sensible was because Roddenberry had less influence on how the show was run. IIRC, at one point he even stopped writing for it.
Fast forward to TNG, where we see GR's real vision of a 'utopia'. In TNG, he was calling all the shots. Also, he even removed it from his own personal canon, stating that he wasn't going to take into account things that were laid down in TOS when he made TNG.

I'm guesing that GR wasn't particularly thrilled with his time in the military, as at one point Picard called a 20th centuary military uniform something along the lines of 'a uniform from a barbaric and violent age'.

Post by **Teaos** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:43 pm

TNG especially the first few seasons was everything GR wanted in a trek series. He hated war and battle and probably made them such a small roll to show what he thought of them.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:24 pm

The Trek shows are very much children of their time.

TOS : 1960s. The cold war rages and reds are under the beds. TOS gives us Klingons as Russians and the cold war in space. Kirk is the good guy so he talks peace and wants to co-exist... but he is mindful to talk softly and carry a big phaser bank, and man does he know how to use it!

TNG : 1980s. The cold war still rages, but in Hollywood it's all about Peace and love, man; we need to work together to settle our differences. We have a shrink on the bridge to make sure we're all thinking lovely thoughts all the time, and you don't shoot unless the other guy has not only shot first but all but won the battle already.

DS9 : 1990s. Never mind that cold war crap, it's all about building a consensus and establishing alliances. It's the UN in space, and we can only go to war if we can get everybody else on board with it.

Voyager : 1990s also. The big bad enemy is gone... nowdays we fight the 3rd world Kazons with an oh so politically correct woman in the big chair.

Enterprise : 2000s... and hey, the big bad is gone and the 3rd world suddenly brings the war right back home again! Now we're up against the Taliban - sorry, Suliban - in space, with a side order of Xindi courtesy of 9/11.

Now that's all broad, broad strokes of course and you could quibble with a lot of it (Voyager did acquire a Big Bad eventually for instance), but it fascinates me to see how each show reflects the time it was made in.

Jordanis · Post by **Jordanis** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:33 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:Voyager : 1990s also. The big bad enemy is gone... nowdays we fight the 3rd world Kazons with an oh so politically correct woman in the big chair.

Enterprise : 2000s... and hey, the big bad is gone and the 3rd world suddenly brings the war right back home again! Now we're up against the Taliban - sorry, Suliban - in space, with a side order of Xindi courtesy of 9/11.

Fine, but I pity the history student that tries to watch either of these to get a sense of the times.

Blackstar the Chakat · Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:27 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:The Trek shows are very much children of their time.

TOS : 1960s. The cold war rages and reds are under the beds. TOS gives us Klingons as Russians and the cold war in space. Kirk is the good guy so he talks peace and wants to co-exist... but he is mindful to talk softly and carry a big phaser bank, and man does he know how to use it!

TNG : 1980s. The cold war still rages, but in Hollywood it's all about Peace and love, man; we need to work together to settle our differences. We have a shrink on the bridge to make sure we're all thinking lovely thoughts all the time, and you don't shoot unless the other guy has not only shot first but all but won the battle already.

DS9 : 1990s. Never mind that cold war crap, it's all about building a consensus and establishing alliances. It's the UN in space, and we can only go to war if we can get everybody else on board with it.

Voyager : 1990s also. The big bad enemy is gone... nowdays we fight the 3rd world Kazons with an oh so politically correct woman in the big chair.

Enterprise : 2000s... and hey, the big bad is gone and the 3rd world suddenly brings the war right back home again! Now we're up against the Taliban - sorry, Suliban - in space, with a side order of Xindi courtesy of 9/11.

Now that's all broad, broad strokes of course and you could quibble with a lot of it (Voyager did acquire a Big Bad eventually for instance), but it fascinates me to see how each show reflects the time it was made in.

I think that's one of the best break downs of Trek I've ever seen.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:29 am

I'll second that!

Though, I think we covered something like this before.

kostmayer · Post by **kostmayer** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:53 am

I once posted on another board how, by comparing the Captains from the different series to various fictional TV detectives, you could achieve a direct correlation between the quality of the TV Detective, and the quality of the Captain. I seem to have lost the pictorial evidence, but it broke down like this.

Captain Janeway = Mrs Columbo (yes, there was a tv series), by far the worst of the lot.

Captain Kirk = Jim Rockford. Cool sideburns, which I admire in a man, but ultimately style over substance, and at the end of the day, not much style.

Captain Sisko = John Shaft. Its his duty, to kick that booty.

Then, saving the best till last- Captain Picard - Poirot. Possibly a bit of a nonce, but everyone knows - he de man!

Not sure where Archer would fit into all this, Enterprise wasn't about when I did the study.

RK_Striker_JK_5 · Post by **RK_Striker_JK_5** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:56 am

Awesome, Graham.