Why TOS is better than TNG

[ray gower]

We've spent a good many idle minutes/hours/days trying to figure this one out, leading to many posts on the subject of what is wrong with Trek, leading to a whole range of sometimes quite minor points. I think I may now, tentatively, offer a reason that ties them all together.

There is nothing wrong with the stories themselves. In the main they are the same ones used in TOS and a good story remains a good story no matter how often they are used. But..

There is no acting involved in Trek anymore (or in any other modern sci/fi show if we are but honest!).

Reasoning appologies for the length of this
I had the priviledge of going to Stratford to see a Shakespearean play during the summer, Richard III. In the lead of this was an actor from Eastenders (a rather ghastly TV soap) in which he is a ghastly actor. However in the play he was outstandingly good!

It strikes me that here he, and other members of the cast, could only portray what was needed by their actions and modulation of their voices. There were no horses to pull a cart, castle keeps to pontificate from, or casts of thousands to rattle shields etc. Consequently everything is exaggerated to make the point.

It was much the same in TOS.

When the ship was attacked, there was no great set to shake, consequently Kirk and co had to leap from their seats and pretend (act) as the camera was physically wobbled.

Where things started to go wrong, Kirk, Bones, Scotty and others would all go into violent raptures about it.

Conversely, Spock, was a model of calm, even when the sky was caving in, giving him an 'alien' air, that led to great shock all round when he started to caper like his human shipmates.

In short everything was exaggerated.

Now of course in TNG et al. if the ship is attacked, they shake the set for them and Picard merely grips the arm of the chair, we can't even see his knuckles go white.

When Mrs Crusher besomes demonstrative (trys to act) it merely looks like self-righteous preaching, because of the general Spock like cardboard tendencies of the rest of the crew.

It all leads to a lack of atmosphere, or danger.

 

[Dave]

DS9 Rocks!!!

I think there is something in what you are saying, but there have been some decent actors in Trek, and some very meaty scenes. They often have to act to a blue screen, or pretend that an old friend is an alien being.

Theatre is a completely different animal to TV. If there is ever a 'Star Trek: The Stage Play' I'm sure that the acting will be more along the lines that you described.

I would say that the "lack of atmosphere, or danger" is due more to the fact that major characters never die, or the 'reset button' effect.

Since they are under contract, you know that when Chakotay and Janeway are left behind on a planet, the ship will go back for them. When Reed has his leg speared to a Romulan mine, and a Warbird attacks, you know he will somehow live.

How many major characters have been knocked off? I don't count Kirk as he may still come back yet. (Spock did die and return, which only goes to prove my point.)

Apart from Tasha Yar, who hadn't really started, and Jadzia Dax, I can't think of any.

That's one of the reasons DS9 was good. There was real danger, and things were never static. Nog had a leg amputated. Kassidy Yates was sent to prison. Eddington and Dukat were killed off. Sisko became a Prophet, and Odo left Kira to return to the Founders.

 

[ray gower]

I'm not so sure it matters if characters die or not, after all we knew that Kirk would not die in TOS, no matter how often his shirt got torn. But wouldn't the torn shirt be more of that exaggeration I have claimed?

One of the best Enterprise episodes, Shuttle Pod 1, relied almost entirely upon the activities of Reed and Trip. The only way they could show they were suffocating was by their actions. Yet we knew they would survive at the end.

Again the final scenes you mentioned from DS9 were moving, but we were left with what the actors could portray. Whilst I cannot say I was particularly perturbed by Dax getting bumped off, certainly not by any effect it had upon the others, who largely shrugged it off. Nor, if it comes to that, did Nog ever show the effects of having a leg cut off afterwards e.g. a limp. I know medicine is wonderful in the 24th Century, but it might have served as a reminder?

I have not opined on the quality of actors used, heaven knows Shatner is not a good actor, what I claimed was that they did not have to or are not allowed to act.

When they are allowed to act, we can get something with just a little buzz.

 

[Tapestry_03]

When I get ticked off it is better that I not post, than to rant and rave. Just the title of your post ticked me off.

And look at this. I've posted. Gone against my own rules. But I had to.

I do agree that TOS was acting-intensive. But Shatner was not.

You cannot deny, tho, that TNG contained more acting than the shows successive. Afterall, Stewart is a Shakespearian actor. A great actor indeed! If you think his ability lacked on TNG, you might acredit it to the fact that it was a science fiction series with no ties to Shakespear.

I know, no compelling arguement or ranting. Good for me, tho. It just really bothers me when someone says that TOS was better than TNG. In no way will I ever be able to agree! TOS was back before good SFX, they had to play make-believe all the time.

One more thing. DS9-think about episodes such as "Far Beyond the Stars" and "Image in the Sand." I believe Avery Brooks showed his acting strength in these.

 

[ray gower]

You are most welcome to the debate, Tapestry03!
Causing people ire is not intended I can assure you. But stirring debate is.
Wish you had used an easier colour to read though, my eyesight is not what it was

I'm not sure if I can entirely agree that TNG was more flushed with acted incident than the other Treks. All of them have their highlights and lowlights. Very low in the case of Voyager!
Some of the actors were better qualified to do the job perhaps? Which makes it all the more painful that they were often not able to get on with it?

I whole heartedly agree that Shatner and the rest of the TOS cast, were not great, or even good, actors. But they were allowed to and did put their hearts into it. Which is something Patrick Stewart rarely did. It is no secret he did not like the job, or the show, though he has always been coy as to why. One can draw ones own conclusion from that.
No Shakespear ties?
Well, perhaps. But there were any number of the Bairds stories being played out, even if the characters aren't called Othello, Henry or similar. Nor does Stewart only do Shakespearean plays on stage.

You offered a couple of examples of DS9 episodes. May I be impudent enough to observe that they were episodes where effects were largely disposed of and the actor was allowed a free head?

Before somebody accuses me of being anti-SFX. I am not!
What I will claim is that they are frequently overused and often in places where there may be better ways of depicting the new hazard.
I offer the TNG episode 'The Battle' where both acting and effects come together to build an atmosphere.
Arsenal of Freedom as a prime example where the pictures and what the actors are saying do not match, They could just as easily be sat around a table having tea and crumpets in a tea shoppe for all the inflection (and yes I know Data was one of the team).

Please argue on

 

[Tapestry_03]

First, I apologize for the color. Orange has become my signature color in another forum and I thought I might try it over here. I will change it, tho, for the benifit of others.

This is one thing that irks me to the extreme. Bad acting.

I suppose you are right in saying

I'm not sure if I can entirely agree that TNG was more flushed with acted incident than the other Treks.

Other Treks did, at times, have more and do better. But, I have to admit, I will forever be biased. I grew up with TNG. I'm part of the TNG generation. None of the others series will ever add up to the TNG cast's performance in my eyes.
As for actors, I definately agree some other actors may have done better in certain parts. Kate Mulgrew was excellent as Captain Janeway (of course, you'll probably disagree). She is an extraordinary actress and I only wish I could see her performance as Katherine Hepburn.

True, there were some Shakespear-esce stories. There just weren't any Shakespearian parts. I just wanted to point out that Stewart's common, and better, roles are of a different genre. When he wanted, tho, he did put his heart into it. Might I refrence a certain episode entitled Tapestry? Not a tough episode to do, but he played his confusion and anger well. A better example would be The Inner Light.

You offered a couple of examples of DS9 episodes. May I be impudent enough to observe that they were episodes where effects were largely disposed of and the actor was allowed a free head?

Exactly. Without all of the SFX they proved their abilities. And I never meant to suggest that you might be against SFX. I was saying that because of the advantage of how advance today's SFX are, the need for physicalFX isn't as great as it once was. Yes, they do over use them at times, but I have a feeling SFX played a major part in the newfound success in Trek-dom. Before SFX Trek was simply cancled (not to say for that reason), but now it goes on into a full life and is brought to end by choice. Trek would possibly never have gotten as far as it has without SFX.

 

[ray gower]

Thank's for the change in colour, even more for debating

Obviously you don't need to be a bad actor to act badly and this was one of the key points I was getting across. It is my ascertion that much of Trek is now poorly acted. That is not always because the actors are bad actors, Mulgrew (who is a spitting image of Hepburn), Stewart, even Ryan are all good actor/ess's. But the truth is they do not act for whatever reason.

It is troublesome that when they did act (or were allowed to) things ended with a very good show that can outshine anything from the TOS stable. Wasn't desperately impressed by Tapestry or Inner Light as stories, but I agree whole heartedly that Stewart tried in those episodes and did a good job with them. But that is why we can point at individual shows and say that was good and not wave a general hand at it and say I really 'felt' this (Not withstanding TNG was your first Trek and you are slightly biased towards, as I am away from it).

TOS was not devoid of SFX, but they were used differently, more sparingly and dare I say more imaginativly (The Gorn, Doomsday Machine?)

Trek (and other Sci/Fi shows TV or film based) have veered badly from using whatever acting abilities the actors hold towards cheap SFX.

The SFX are and should be bigger, better and more frequent thanks to the technology. But they should not cloud the story and that can only be told by people 'pretending to do things' (acting).

Thus I claim: It is this loss of acting that has resulted in the general demise of Trek.

BTW: Did you know Hepburn was criticised as 'Knowing the full range of emotions, from A to B'?

 

[Tapestry_03]

No, I did not know that about Katherine Hepburn, but I certainly believe it. She was an excellent actress and forever one of my favorites.

As for Ryan, I could only assume you mean Jeri Ryan. I could never agree on this point. I never saw her as much as an actress. It was pitifully obvious she was meant as eye-candy. I never saw her as this (being I'm a girl who likes guys ), but I could not see beyond the obvious statement of her appearance to her acting abilities. I more or less resented her as a sorry replacement for Jennifer Lien.

I must now admit that my TOS knowledge is limited. I wouldn't doubt that I've seen less that twenty episodes. What I know of it comes more from reading, so I can't really vouch for any of the SFX. I know they did well with what limited resources they had. Kudos for the transporter. Amazing how hardly advanced glitter in a fish bowl is, yet so great an idea.

And, once again, a bias. Tapestry has always been one of my favorite episodes (in case the SN didn't give it away). I know Phil Ferrand has a lot to say against the episode, inaccuracies and all, and it's not really a touchy-feely episode, but it's well done. Stewart/Picard adapted well to the situation, attempting to tolerate Q for a second chance.

 

[ray gower]

Originally posted by Tapestry_03
As for Ryan, I could only assume you mean Jeri Ryan. I could never agree on this point. I never saw her as much as an actress. It was pitifully obvious she was meant as eye-candy. I never saw her as this (being I'm a girl who likes guys ), but I could not see beyond the obvious statement of her appearance to her acting abilities. I more or less resented her as a sorry replacement for Jennifer Lien.

Fortunately, or not, I am an old enough chap to appreciate the 'candy' and what lay underneath. I would point you at two particular episodes, one where she has Borg inspired flashbacks after a run in with a stray Viniculem and she was swapping characters from Klingon, Borg, Human and Ferrengi at the touch of a hat. All were distinctly different in voice and physical portrayal.
The other was more sensitive and she was periodically playing host to the Doctor.
Both were well done.
Her misfortune was in the way her character was used and abused. And I daresay there were reasons for that, demographics and/or the others appeared to have given up. (There is a thread on the subject in Voyager.)

I think, although we have some differences of opinion on specifics, we do have a level of agreement here. The 'Acting' involvement in Trek has/is systematically being reduced to sporadic events and it tends to be those that we turn around and say "That was good!"

If I am wrong, I'm sure you will correct me?

originally posted by Dave
I think there is something in what you are saying, but there have been some decent actors in Trek, and some very meaty scenes. They often have to act to a blue screen, or pretend that an old friend is an alien being.

Theatre is a completely different animal to TV. If there is ever a 'Star Trek: The Stage Play' I'm sure that the acting will be more along the lines that you described.

Should have commented on this before perhaps.
Yes live theatre is visually different for those that watch it.
For the actors too, they can't have retakes when they foul-up.

But is there really a big difference, particularly in terms of technique between: Pretending the blue curtain is a horribly beweaponed Klingon Battlecruiser and pretending it is a brickwall, that the executive chair is a command chair of an advanced space ship and not an orange box pretending to be a throne, or even that the chap you were drinking with at lunch is a bug-eyed monster as opposed to Hamlet?


OT. I know Patrick Stewart's Shakespear credentials are whispered with awe and that any actor with RSC in his/her c.v. is immediately listed as a 'real actor(ess)' in any country.
But isn't there anything remotely equivalent to the UK's repertory companies in the US?
After all the RSC is only one rep' company out of some thirty simillar organisations (if the most famous).

 

[markpud]

I agree with a lot of what's been said about TOS, there was an air of "danger", and the actors had to jump around as there was on hi-tech set to shake. But as a child of the "TNG" generation, I have always seen TOS as something of a comedy compared to TNG. I mean Kirk vs the Gorn, was so bad it's untrue, and the red-shirted security guys that were doomed from the moment of transport have gone down in the annals of history.

TOS plots generally revolved around the ship being crippled and Kirk instructing Scotty to fix it, cue "she cannae take it' Cap'n" etc, with a sub-plot of "damn green-blooded vulcans" from Bones. This doesn't compare with the quality of both the acting and the plots in the majority of TNG.

I have only season 1 of TNG on DVD (I disagree strongly with the speed of their releases, but that's another story), but I love watching pretty much every episode, even the more TOS-style eps like the one where Tasha has to fight to the death (I don't get on well with episode names!). The scenes hang off Picard and Stewart's presence is immense, something that Shatner could never achieve, even when he was young and thin(ner).

 

[ray gower]

Originally posted by markpud
I agree with a lot of what's been said about TOS, there was an air of "danger", and the actors had to jump around as there was on hi-tech set to shake. But as a child of the "TNG" generation, I have always seen TOS as something of a comedy compared to TNG. I mean Kirk vs the Gorn, was so bad it's untrue, and the red-shirted security guys that were doomed from the moment of transport have gone down in the annals of history.

But isn't the sense of "danger" the thing that is largely missing in Trek's latter incarnations?
When everything else, by common consent, has improved (effects, props, story{?}), then we only have acting left. And Scotty and co's for all their lack of ability certainly portrayed the dangers.

TOS plots generally revolved around the ship being crippled and Kirk instructing Scotty to fix it, cue "she cannae take it' Cap'n" etc, with a sub-plot of "damn green-blooded vulcans" from Bones. This doesn't compare with the quality of both the acting and the plots in the majority of TNG.

And TNG isn't the same?
Okay Picard never gets his shirt ripped and heaven forbid there is ever a stir in the heartbeat, let alone signs of alarm from our stout heroes as they activate their Tacion Beam, but Enterprise is still facing an imponderable danger every week.

 

[markpud]

Originally posted by ray gower

But isn't the sense of "danger" the thing that is largely missing in Trek's latter incarnations?
When everything else, by common consent, has improved (effects, props, story{?}), then we only have acting left. And Scotty and co's for all their lack of ability certainly portrayed the dangers.
And TNG isn't the same?
Okay Picard never gets his shirt ripped and heaven forbid there is ever a stir in the heartbeat, let alone signs of alarm from our stout heroes as they activate their Tacion Beam, but Enterprise is still facing an imponderable danger every week.

I feel that TNG does have a lot of that "danger" factor.. The tension builds up well in a lot of the episodes, especially when they are played off Picard. The early TNG has a lot of similar style to TOS, in that we get lots of close-ups of Picard, he makes the tough choices and sweats out the consequences. Kirk may have had more of a sweat on his brow, but I still feel that Picard does the job just as well, despite leaving the shirt-ripping to Riker, Worf etc.

Talk about Voyager and I tend to agree, ray. The "reset switch" was pressed virtually every week and this was to the detriment of the show. They could have had the ship becoming increasingly patchwork, certain consoles put beyond repair, but no, everything was back to normal the next week. This was always true of Trek, but on Voyager it was much more unbelievable as they had no starfleet resources to fix them up.

A case in point there is the "Year of Hell" where the ship got totally trashed bit by bit, as did the crew, and this added hugely to the drama and watch-ability of the episode. If they had the strength of conviction to make the "Year of hell" a whole season rather than a double episode, it would have taken Trek to a whole new level, but of course the next season after the time line was restored would have been a huge comedown.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by markpud
I feel that TNG does have a lot of that "danger" factor..

Even though I was sure they would get out of it somehow, I would agree with that. Just off the top of my head I can think of some of the cliffhangers...

'Best of Both Worlds'
'Chain of Command'

I can't think of a similar level of tension in any TOS episode, (although they only ever had one two parter.)

 

[ray gower]

Think I might have cut a rod for my back picking on TNG. After all TNG is better than what has come since. But hey, it could have been worse, I could have chosen to spark a fight over why Voyager is better than TNG?
Thanks to all for taking time to contemplate their defence and making this a good debate!

Two part episodes always have an advantage over their single shot cousins, in the same way that a series has advantages over two parters, things have more time to develop.
It is always possible to find somewhere to leave things in the middle of activities, they did it for years with Flash Gordon and Lone Ranger.
But the fact that they cut things off in the middle does not immediately equal a better than average episode in terms of feeling what people are experiencing, more likely it leads to frustration, particularly season endings. I think I would wave a general hand at the last episode of ST Enterprise Season 1 for when two parters go badly wrong, though I admit bias, I hated the whole concept of the Suliban with a passion.

TOS's two parter would be the trial of Spock, when he tried to take Pike back to the Menagery. Not one of the most exciting episodes going; it didn't end in a cliff-hanger, it was an intrigue. Spock did not behave like that!

Menagery itself, the pilot episode, managed to palpably build the level of frustration amongst the crew (and Pike) over its alotted hour. If anything the chap who played Pike was a worse actor than Shatner!

========================================

It is claimed in educational circles that of what you learn and comprehend, 25% is from seeing, 25% is from listening and 50% is what you do. We can't do the 'doing' bit (yet), so we are left with trying to get the most from the other two.

I am not arguing that all the visual excitement is missing in TNG and newer, it isn't. Too many effects for that. Turn the sound off and watch the pictures and they will look as good.

My stand is that the acting required to make the impression stay with you when the credits roll is often absent in modern Trek. Turn the picture off and simply listen to the dialogue, you will know what is going on, especially if you have seen the episode a few times (Trek scripts are pretty good for explaining what is going on). One is left with a simple monologue with little inflection. This is not the case with TOS where there is much passion over what is happening.

It is when the pictures and dialogue come together that we get outstandingly memorable episodes, because we are closer to at least half understanding what is going on.

TNG was good in its own right: Better actors, sets, effects, sometimes even stories. It introduced whole new generations to the Trek Universe.

But if some of the acting passion of the TOS era were to be married with the generally better acting abilities in TNG (I'll ignore Riker and the Crushers) and generally better quality production, we would be that much closer to the 50% of understanding what is really happening. Would that not have made TNG and its successors that much better?

 

[markpud]

Originally posted by ray gower
But if some of the acting passion of the TOS era were to be married with the generally better acting abilities in TNG (I'll ignore Riker and the Crushers) and generally better quality production, we would be that much closer to the 50% of understanding what is really happening. Would that not have made TNG and its successors that much better?

I'd tend to agree overall.. Esp in the early seasons of DS9 and Voyager, both of which were decidedly average. They had to introduce the most ambitious plot-arc in trek history to keep DS9 interesting, although I must admit from around S4 onward DS9 is pretty good generally. The introduction of Worf, one of TNG's best characters at this time was co-incidental? I think not.

Similarly with Seven in Voyager. For all the critics of her being simply "eye candy" or to attract a younger male audience, she did allow the writers to explore the Borg in much more detail, and also gave the pre-requisite "trying to be more human" character that has always been present in the form of Spock, Data, Odo...

 

[dvo47p]

Science Fiction Weekly letter agrees with Ray

Star Trek Needs New Producers
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue339/letters.html

Dave Richmond ("Star Trek Has Lost Touch With Fans") kindly tells us that if we don't like Star Trek, we don't have to watch it. Also, that the show is purely for entertainment, purposes. Wow, what a revelation for all Science Fiction Weekly readers. He goes on to tell us that violence, sex and derogatory language run rampant in today's TV, and that this has become the social norm in television production.

I don't know what he's watching, but he needs to broaden his channel package. I would, however, concede that U.S. couch fodder TV has become disturbingly ass-centered. Be it supposedly good guys threatening to kick the bad guy's ass, authority figures claiming to own someone's ass, or what passes for news featuring sycophantic reporters kissing political ass. Ass is everywhere, and personally I'd like it wiped!

But back to Star Trek. I was entertained by Dave's assertion that Enterprise has evolved into a very watchable show (if you can ignore all of the time-line discrepancies). Huh? If I'm reading him right, what he's saying is that in order for the show to be watchable, the producers are to be excused for insulting the intelligence of the audience, and ignoring series lore built up over the past 40 years! Is Dave on his own here, or am I seeing the emergence of a trend, like ass TV, only more insidious? What he seems to be saying is that we shouldn't care because we don't have to watch.

What is this attitude of laying down for the machine to roll right over? Surely, if a series is bad, yet being propped up by a corporation, then the very least they can do is fire the clowns who've done the damage, and give some new talent a chance. But how would the suits ever be prompted to try such strategy, if everyone moved on and stopped complaining? If that happened, then we'd be asking the question, how many Paramount producers does it take to make Star Trek popular? To which the answer would be 10. One to produce, and the other nine to shout "Wooo, good job!"

Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com

 

[ray gower]

And I thought I was doing pretty nicely on my own!

Tracing that letter back to the one that prompted the response by Dave Richmond (AFAIK NOT ours) comes one simple sentence that sums up my stance "The interactions and dialogue scripting between the show's main characters [Enterprise] were stiff and unemotional."
How watchable Enterprise is in Season 3 I cannot comment upon. I have not seen it yet.

Most of the rest however I do not really see as an issue, they can all be levelled at TOS with as much validity as anything that has come since and is covered in our other threads on 'What is Wrong with Trek?' and 'How to Improve Trek'?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ray gower
Tracing that letter back to the one that prompted the response by Dave Richmond (AFAIK NOT ours)

LOL

Dave wishes to make it clear that the views and opinions expressed are not his, and that he is in no way associated with any person, product or organization that may be referred to as "Dave Richmond." Any communication should be directed to the author and not to Dave.

 

[markpud]

Re: Science Fiction Weekly letter agrees with Ray

Originally posted by dvo47p
Star Trek Needs New Producers
http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue339/letters.html

Dave Richmond ("Star Trek Has Lost Touch With Fans") kindly tells us that if we don't like Star Trek, we don't have to watch it.

Where Enterprise is concerned, I don't like it and I don't watch it, mission accomplished?

 

[Dave]

Enterprise has just signed up Manny Coto (Odyssey 5) as an executive producer. You can't say that they aren't trying. I expect great things to come from him. And John Shiban's (ex-X Files) writing made it's mark last year too!

And I still don't agree with Ray about the acting. It may have been more over the top in TOS but never better. Those Cardassians and Ferengi in DS9 were covered in rubber, with only chins and mouths exposed, yet they gave great performances. (Makes the Gorn look like a piece of wood!)

Sorry, but the Dominion War Arc stories were the best Trek ever, the 5th and 6th Seasons of TNG were the best seasons ever, and the 3rd Season of Enterprise looks like it will be unmissable too.

That's not to say TOS doesn't hold a special place in my heart. It's my childhood memories of TV scifi, but there is just no comparison between it and today's TV.

And comparing TV to theatre is like comparing a car to an aircraft, both take you on a journey, but you cannot and would never replace one with the other.