It’s so bizarre to read this in the present, knowing how incredible TNG was, but I get it - the original crew WAS Star Trek to them.

The dedicated fans revived this series in syndication, well after it had gone off the air in 1969, and felt attached to the characters that they had obsessed over between then and the 1980s. Like modern fans, they thought that departure from what they knew would ruin it.

I wish I could go back in time and tell them that TNG is going to rock.

  • ramble81@lemm.eeEnglish
    124·
    1 year ago

    “unknown British Shakespearian actor…” Wow, I never thought I’d hear Patrick Stewart described that way.

    • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      501·
      1 year ago

      It took me a long time to reach this conclusion. I love TOS, and the characters are cultural icons, but when I want to fanboy over the whole “philosophy” of Star Trek, I’m thinking of TNG every single time.

      • Hazdaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        312·
        1 year ago

        I’ll probably get wrecked in here for saying this,but I never liked TOS. It’s so campy and hokey. Even the movies with the original cast don’t interest me all that much. I respect them for paving the way for TNG, but I’ll never choose TOS over TNG.

        • CrayonMaster@midwest.socialEnglish
          172·
          1 year ago

          TOS is fun to watch in an ironic, cult classic, campy, laughing-at-it-not-with-it way. TNG was the first actually good star trek.

        • zaphod@lemmy.caEnglish
          6·
          1 year ago

          That’s actually why can rewatch TOS endlessly but TNG only occasionally. TOS is that light popcorn fare that’s entertaining but you don’t take very seriously. TNG is serious sci-fi that challenges the audience often with very difficult subject matter. The latter is objectively the better show but if I’m looking for something to throw on for casual fun, for me it’s TOS all the way.

          • kamenLady.@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            Same, though there’s one i can really watch endlessly: TAS. Giant Spock melting minds with normal Spock always gets me.

          • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            This is how I am too. TOS feels like a lesser commitment to watching something, so it winds up being easier to throw on casually.

        • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.caEnglish
          61·
          1 year ago

          I have never watched TOS, but I have watched all the TOS movies and I am fond of them.

        • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          I agree. TOS has some interesting characters and fun moments, but I just can’t get into like I get into TNG. TNG is a series I can watch start to finish and all the movies and then start right over and watch it all again. TOS is one I might re-watch every 5+ years to refresh my memory, but I’ll put it on exclusively while I’m doing something else so I don’t waste my attention. My Dad loves TOS and TNG, and regularly references TOS, expecting me to remember episode names and whole plot lines. Oops.

        • AEsheron@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I tried to go back and watch it as part of a kind of personal nerd pilgrimage. I just couldn’t get through it to save my life. Then I hit the beginning of TNG and was shocked, that was not what I remembered at all from all the reruns I saw growing up. I’m honestly still kind of shocked it lasted long enough to grow the beard.

          • Hazdaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            I really think that can be said for a lot of shows. First few episodes, and sometimes the first few seasons don’t hit like the later ones. Simpsons, Seinfeld, TNG, Arrested Development and a lot of other shows were constantly on the cusp of getting canceled until they got their audience and the writers hit their stride with the story.

            It happens so much to shows that we know ended up turning out good, that it always makes me wonder how many shows were canceled a few episodes or maybe a season or two sooner than they should have.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      1 year ago

      Season one of TNG was compared to TOS and TNG didn’t fare too well early on. The Naked Now? A copy of The Naked Time. Data trying to be human was compared to Spock. LaForge wasn’t like Scotty. Picard was stuck up and by the book compared to Kirk rushing into battle and brawling with aliens with his bare hands.

      It wasn’t until the show developed into its own thing that it became great.

    • eldavi@lemmy.mlEnglish
      111·
      1 year ago

      unpopular opinion: the first 3 seasons of tng were the best

    • coehl@programming.devEnglish
      311·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the author was pretty obviously decided on his position and accuracy was an afterthought. But if you check his name, you’ll realize he makes a mean spicy chicken sandwich fwiw

    • transwarp@startrek.websiteEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      If you read the initial material, Data is drastically different. There is no explicit mention of being unemotional, just that he tends to speak more formally. He’s supposed to be more like the Ilia probe than Spock.

      Worf didn’t exist at first, so Geordi the teacher with bionic vision would be the most “other” character. If they’d seen any of the early press material for Phase II, Spock’s replacement there was a very junior officer.

        • transwarp@startrek.websiteEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          The idea was that the Klingons had joined the Federation and we’d see Klingon Starfleet personnel in the background. When they did add Worf, he was to be more frequently Data’s relief than Yar’s.

    • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, what was revolutionary in the 1960s (humans of all nationalities working together) wouldn’t have been enough in 1987, but I appreciate that it set the groundwork for the series as a whole.

      The acting in TOS is over the top and often silly, but I try to watch it as a product of its time - audiences didn’t really want their shows to have an edge or get deeply philosophical back then, so Roddenberry and team had to sneak that type of stuff in where they could. I have a soft spot for TOS and the campy characters and still think it’s a fun lighthearted watch.

  • hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.worldEnglish
    45·
    1 year ago

    I mean let’s be real here they had every right to be concerned. TNG had serious problems in the beginning and had some pretty big flaws even as the show got going. Off the top of my head

    • The first few episodes (besides Q) were straight trash. Even if you take out the ample racism and sexism, they still kinda suck
    • Worf didn’t become a thing until Yar died. He was just kinda there. Also his hair looked ridiculous
    • Riker was half as sexy in terms of looks and a quarter as sexy in terms of personality
    • Picard was a dick. Not firm but fair. A straight up dick.
    • They straight up got rid of crusher for a season
    • The Ferengi were awful. Not like in a “lol what shenanigans is Quark up to now” but in a “TOS Gorn” way
    • cloudy1999@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      23·
      1 year ago

      I’m watching TNG now with someone who’s never seen it before, and that’s making me ‘see’ the show with fresh eyes. The first few episodes are so hard to get through. Some are straight up cringey. Many remember Code of Honor and Last Outpost as being horrible, but Naked Now is awful in its own way. Don’t get me wrong: TNG goes on to be an excellent, culture-defining show. When people talk about how good it is, they’re probably thinking about Measure of a Man, Inner Light, Darmok, and Best of Both Worlds.

      Let me add that DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise got to build on the risks that TNG took. Those shows were more consistently good at their starts.

        • cloudy1999@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          9·
          1 year ago

          Jokes aside, it’s a great point. It adds even more meaning to Data’s evident attachment to Tasha later on.

        • hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Do you think the structured Soong’s character around the idea that he’d 100 percent be the type of guy to ensure Data had a fully functioning Penis?

          • Electricorchestra@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            Honestly from what we know of the Soong’s they probably almost never get laid so they 100% would try to make their androids studs in the bedroom.

      • Ilari@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        The Naked Now was a bizarre choice for such an early episode. It’s the very first one after the premiere, and it’s based on the crew acting out of character – before the audience has had time to learn what their personalities are supposed to be.

    • nxdefiant@startrek.websiteEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      Completely irrelevant to the topic, but my personal head canon is that Janeway admired Worf’s S1 Hair and copied it when she was given Voyager to command.

    • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
      61·
      1 year ago

      They straight up got rid of crusher for a season

      I believe McFadden was fired, which was why she disappeared for no reason or fanfare.

      TNG had serious problems in the beginning and had some pretty big flaws even as the show got going. Off the top of my head

      You’re not wrong. I think the only main character that really had any development in the first 2 seasons is Dr Pulaski, going from someone completely unfamiliar with Data, and conscious machinery, to being an ardent supporter of his. We had a little but in Data settling into being an emotionless Android trying to learn to be more human, and Geordi becoming Chief Engineer, but they were very minor background tweaks to the characters.

      Everyone else barely changed at all in that time, except for Lt. Yar, who went from being a living breathing person to corpse.

    • Blimp7990@reddthat.comEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      The Ferengi

      they were awful, but they did give me a good basis for imagining wolf-of-wall-street types

    • Loom In Essence@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      I love the first few episodes, I prefer babyface riker, and I think Dick Picard was a cool badass who I fully support.

      But they should have kept Crusher, and the political conflicts were a ridiculous joke epitomized by the cartoonish ferengi. S3 gave us much better aesthetics and politics (though the new character driven storytelling might be a matter of taste).

      • Blimp7990@reddthat.comEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        well when I googled “racism in star trek tng” i got “code of honor” so maybe start there

        result number 2 was also “code of honor” followed in third place by…well, the 1960s.

        4 is code of honor, 5 is ds9, 6 is 1960s, and 7 is ‘beyond the stars’ one of the best episodes of all the treks, but only present in the results because it discussed racism. in the 60s (ok 50s so shoot me).

    • Blimp7990@reddthat.comEnglish
      142·
      1 year ago

      Somehow every character except the black man has a name, and every actor except the black one gets a serious headshot. hmm.

      • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldEnglish
        66·
        1 year ago

        Wdym, Burton has a normal photo and the character is named among the others. Stewart’s picture is from a performance, so also different.

        Also funny how you’re complaining about someone not getting named, and you’re just referring to him as a black man.

        • Blimp7990@reddthat.comEnglish
          41·
          1 year ago

          you’re just referring to him as a black man.

          yes, in this case the pertinent piece of information is not that he is hero of all 80’s childrens’ childhoods, book advocate and reading rainbow star LeVar Burton. what matters for the point i am trying to make is that i am presuming the pov of the editor of that article: oh, hes the black guy who is gonna be the new spock. (his character name is not “the new spock”)

          its ok to do that. I don’t think LeVar Burton is going to not get the point.

          Its also a bit hard to make out, but they spell his name Lavar as well. I could see him stylizing it at some point and going from Levar to LeVar, but his name is Levardis and did not ever go by Lavar from what I can find. So, going back to my point, editor clearly ignored and deprioritized him in particular vs the white members of the cast.

          • NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            It also feels like they intentionally picked that photo for contrast value: smiling so broadly when that is something “the original Spock” never did. They were going for the outrage factor, truth be damned.

    • theangryseal@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, who even thought that for a second?

      I grew up with Next Generation first, sitting on my dad’s lap watching the show with him.

      When I first watched TOS I remember seeing Spock and saying, “oh yeah, the original Data”.

      • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Especially since Spock was often described by Bones as being a walking computer, and Data was described as an Android. It would be less of a logical leap than having Geordi be the new Spock.

      • TimewornTraveler@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        I remember thinking, “I don’t wanna watch a Trek without Spock,” and then Data came along and I was hooked.

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Was that part of the marketing at the time, or just some bizarre leap from the author? I’m having a hard time finding any good comparisons between La Forge and Spock. In season 1 Geordi wasn’t even in engineering, let alone the science officer. He was a helmsman, so in that sense more comparable to Sulu or Chekhov, and he certainly doesn’t have anything like the relationship with the captain that Spock did.

      Is it just because he was a recognizable name at the time? It’s just a weird jump to make.

  • Julian@lemm.eeEnglish
    41·
    1 year ago

    It’s always funny looking back at stuff like this. I remember looking at old articles about Catherine Tate becoming a companion in doctor who and people were furious - and in retrospect not only was she one of the best companions, but that was probably the greatest era of the show.

    • runjun@lemmy.worldEnglish
      241·
      1 year ago

      Heath Ledger is another classic example. I remember the Internet being so confused and mad about the choice. ‘The 10 Things I Hate About You guy!?’

      • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        I came here to post this. I remember someone insisting it was like casting Gary Coleman as Two-Face.

        Although the response wasn’t as strong, there were fans who were also convinced that Robert Downey Jr. was a poor fit for Tony Stark.

        • cogman@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          1 year ago

          Iron man was a hail mary by Marvel. Their IP was failing. RDJ was a lucky casting. Given where he was at at the time he was a pretty risky pick. Marvel didn’t really have the budget to be too picky at the time.

          There’s a reason Spiderman is owned by sony and the hulk by universal.

        • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          I remain slightly miffed about how Dr Pulaski, one of the few characters that received any development in TNG S2, was so hated by some fans that it caused to Diane Muldur to swear off of Trek altogether.

          She might not have entirely understood Data to begin with, but she did become better at that later on, a stark contrast to much of the rest of the Federation, which would still be arguing whether he, or his children had personhood, and is the only Starfleet Doctor in RetroTrek to actively take an interest in and engage with her patient’s cultures.

          I can’t envision early Dr Crusher taking part in Worf’s Klingon tea ceremony, for example.

    • PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.mlEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      LOL. The TNG hate was ridiculous, but one other thing - nobody ignores a Star Trek fan better than other fans of Star Trek.

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.deEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I thought that was a Star Wars thing, but I guess it’s just a thing in general. For reference I like it all, Star Wars, Star Trek, TOS, TNG

  • Nmyownworld@startrek.websiteEnglish
    351·
    1 year ago

    There were Star Trek fans at the time screaming from the rooftops about how TNG would ruin Star Trek. Before TNG even aired. But, there were also Star Trek fans who, while disappointed to not have the TOS crew back, were curious about what TNG was going to bring to the table. And, really happy to have a Star Trek series again. But, “Curious Trekkies Wait to See What’s What with TNG” wasn’t going to sell as many papers and stir up as much drama.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      “Bad Trek is better than no Trek” was the begrudging opinion of TOS fans for the first season of TNG.

    • Altima NEO@lemmy.zipEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      Wasnt it 20 years later too? I mean the og crew probably didn’t want to come back

      • Nmyownworld@startrek.websiteEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        Yeah. The TOS cast did movies, but there’s a difference between doing a film and doing a weekly series. TOS was comfort viewing, and fans were going to fan in wanting more of the same.

    • TrustingZebra@lemmy.oneEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      There were Star Trek fans at the time screaming from the rooftops about how TNG would ruin Star Trek.

      Is this what people had to do to spread their word before the internet?

    • Match!!@pawb.socialEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Well, they probably have one point - how many modern Trek fans have even watched TOS?

        • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
          2·
          1 year ago

          I’ve seen maybe a quarter of the episodes. Seen every other trek episode multiple times. I know it’s blasphemy but trek got a lot better post Roddenberry

        • v_krishna@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          1985, TNG was definitely my introduction, really even Voyager and then got into TNG from there. I haven’t seen more than a couple TOS episodes but have seen everything else (except the animated ones, and many of the old movies barely watched once)

      • Nmyownworld@startrek.websiteEnglish
        81·
        1 year ago

        A lot, I think. At the time of TNG’s initial broadcast, TOS was omnipresent in syndication. And outside of TAS, the only Star Trek series at the time. Star Trek fans watched the heck out of TOS. Then, the Star Trek movies with the TOS cast. The first four films were released before TNG first aired.

  • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
    285·
    1 year ago

    I’ll bet that any TOS fans who were furious at the time probably did not go on to like the show. If they were looking for that witty love/hate triangle of Spock/Kirk/McCoy they didn’t get it.

    But as the name suggests, TNG reached a totally new generation of fans. American culture had changed a LOT between these two shows and anyone attached to the old one was either old themselves or hooked on reruns.

    TNG didn’t slap big right away, either. It took time to get good and find its audience. But I’m so glad they succeeded.

    I say all this to point out that angry fans weren’t actually wrong. The Trek they knew was never coming back. It became a whole other thing for a whole other group of people.

    The difference between this and, say, the Star Wars sequels is that those sequels disappointed fans AND failed to find a new audience that was just as dedicated and even larger.

    People like to use this article to show that angry fans are just idiots- always there and usually wrong. But the TNG miracle hasn’t been repeated many times, if ever, by any of these other franchise rehashes that a Hollywood has shoved out to grab for cash.

    • BlinkAndItsGone@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      I’ll bet that any TOS fans who were furious at the time probably did not go on to like the show.

      As a TOS fan who wasn’t too happy with what I had heard before TNG came out, I would bet against you. Most of them probably became TNG fans eventually, because the most impactful thing a show can do is simply to be great. Canon complaints and complaints about characters not returning are mostly about nostalgia, and if the show is compelling (especially if it’s compelling in a similar way to the old show), nostalgia can’t compete. If anything I’d guess that the people in this article were more likely to become fans of TNG, because it would have exceeded their expectations, which can make things seem better than they would otherwise.

  • Asymptote@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    202·
    1 year ago

    If you’ve seen the original Battlestar Galactica you’ll know why they were worried.

    Only good thing about that show was that in space, bras were unpopular.

    • GratefullyGodless@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      That’s because, according to renown space expert George Lucas, wearing a bra in space would strangle the wearer, which is why Princess Leia jiggled her way around the Death Star. So, it’s not that they were unpopular, just that they were a safety issue.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        I mean, she wasn’t jiggling. Carrie had often complained about how tightly bound she was, he specifically didn’t want that look either. Nothing at all in that outfit would have honestly made a huge difference in how the whole thing felt I think, at least in hindsight it would really cheapen it.

  • BlinkAndItsGone@lemmy.worldEnglish
    181·
    1 year ago

    Were you really a Trekkie if you thought TNG was going to be good in 1987?

    Kidding, sort of. I remember thinking it was going to be a cash grab, and I still think I was right to think so at the time. Keep in mind, you couldn’t go on the Web and instantly know everything about an upcoming TV show. I think I learned it was in production from the back of a cereal box. I didn’t even know Gene Roddenberry was involved. The Enterprise-D design was pretty weird, and the cast of characters was more than a bit out there–a Klingon? On the Enterprise crew? Come on.

    • LedgeDrop@lemm.eeEnglish
      10·
      1 year ago

      As a kid, I saw a contest on a box of cheerios(?) where you could be an child extra in one of the first TNG episodes. So for most of the first season, I sincerely thought Wil Wheaton/Wesley was the winner.

      Anyway, the first few episodes during season 1 were not great, but I was content to finally get some new material. I’m glad TNG had enough time to “find its own groove”.

        • Siliconic@discuss.onlineEnglish
          6·
          1 year ago

          Well, he didn’t have much of an acting career after TNG. I would highly recommend Wil Wheaton’s book Still Just A Geek that he just published a few months ago, I’ve been listening to the audiobook (read by Wheaton) and it’s really good, and there’s some stuff that’s “exclusive” to the audio version (stuff he thought of as he was reading it again lol)

    • MajorHavoc@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      It’s fair to have expected TNG to be a cash grab. I’m sure TNG was a cash grab among all the other things it was. We all want to get paid, after all. I’m just glad it turned out to be so much more as well.

      I’m reminded of the letters page of Aquaman in the issue after he lost his hand.

      “To those of you saying we did it for the shock value, we have this to say for ourselves: we sure didn’t do it for the boredom value.”