Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
Star Trek always seemed to struggle to find its place between the utopia that Roddenbery imagined, and the gritty sci-fi that became popular in the late 1990s, early 2000s. You can see the change in Deep Space Nine when the Dominion get introduced.
|
Haven't gotten to DSN yet, but I can kinda see what you mean. At times, TNG is serious, but then in other episodes it just goes silly. Overall, I think the problem with ST I have so far is the lack of consistency. Things established in earlier episodes are broken just to fit some other episode.
There was one episode early in TNG where, I think it was Riker got killed, but he was beamed to the medlab in about 30 seconds and he got revived. That was explained by saying that if the patient got there in time and had no extreme injuries, the patient could be revived.
Ok, few episodes later, a woman dies, he is beamed almost instantly to the medlab. What does the doctor do? Check her pulse the old fashioned way and says she's dead. No "extreme" injuries, she didn't even use her fancy scanner! Just to make a plot for that episode (another soap opera BS) That is just lazy if you ask me.
See, I don't dislike ST "just because". I dislike what I have seen so far because it makes so little sense and there are so many other, better Sci-fi. Take the original Battlestar Galactica: Acting was better, things made sense, it didn't "bend the rules" to make a plot fit.
I DID enjoy TOS, it was good in the camp way. I mean, it was completely silly, but enjoyable.
I shall report back when I see more of ST. Over and out.
