At first I thought it was really stupid, but after watching a couple episodes I realized that it really isn't any different from the sitcoms I watched in primetime on ABC, NBC, and CBS in the 80's.

I dunno, I guess how I feel about this depends on what sitcoms you were watching. GLC is pretty bad - I've maintain a prohibition on non-animated Disney Channel fare (the occasional movie excepted) in my house.

***

I just finished watching The Prisoner, a show I've been wanting to check out for 30 years. Maybe overrated, but definitely worth watching. Love the ambition, can forgive the occasional clunkiness.

DS9 is the best ST series

This is the standard in-the-know geek stance (No, not picking on you, Greg, just saying overall), to which I feel I must always respond that I couldn't stand the damn thing. With the exception of the last season and a half, it was as boring as death. And I'd be happy to Fringe-science the whole thing out of existence entirely for that baseball episode alone, which makes me cringe even to think about it.


EDIT: Babylon 5 is the best sci fi show, and seasons 2 through halfway through 4 are the best run of sci fi TV ever.

That's an awful lot of Dr. Who, X-Files, and Firefly to be ignoring. (Just sayin'. Babylon 5 is HOM and HOF, no doubt.)

Babylon 5 is definitely still watchable, although a lot of the first season episodes have a "Star Treky" feel to them -- crew meets alien, crew misunderstands alien, crew learns to think outside the box and what at first seemed strange or hostile is revealed to be simply different. But I agree that it is a good show.

(watching Enterprise as we speak, my lord it's consistently terrible)

Enterprise grew on me once they got past the horrendous time travel war. Season 4 was quite good. And Phlox is a fantastic character, one of the best of all treks.

Yeah, the fact that TNG looks so bad now says a lot about how far TV has come.

Of course, I will always be able to enjoy watching it because it sunk its claws into me as a kid. I can understand people treating it objectively and finding it wanting...but at this point that process is beyond my capabilities.

Aside, of course, from season one, which remains unwatchable for even the most loving fan.

I subscribe entirely to this.

I also think Enterprise has been unfairly judged. And that's even with the fact that I routinely spit on prequels as a concept.

With the exception of the last season and a half, it was as boring as death.

That's...unexpected. The seventh season, other than the seven or eight episode finale, is pretty much all horrible holo deck episodes with the Tony Bennett knock off or episodes with the absolutely dreadful Dax replacement. I guess there is the Nog PTSD story line, but I look at the 7th season as a weakness, not a strength.

To each his own, but I'm not sure how two wars, the constant threat of the collapse of the Bajoran government, a nuanced fleshing out of three big time Star Trek species (Klingons, Cardassians, and Ferengi), all the political intrigue, and 6 seasons of consistent and meaningful character development (until the 7th season, where they throw it out and make nearly everyone pine for the unbearable new Dax) can be characterized as boring. In a lot of ways, DS9 was a precursor to many of the glorious dramas that followed in the next decade in the way that they spend the entire show telling one long story.

Plus the French horn intro in the theme song is awesome.

I dunno, I guess how I feel about this depends on what sitcoms you were watching. GLC is pretty bad - I've maintain a prohibition on non-animated Disney Channel fare (the occasional movie excepted) in my house.

I should clarify that it's comparable to a typical sitcom from that era, e.g., Growing Pains, Head of the Class, Mr. Belvedere, My Two Dads. Not the top tier ones like Cheers or the first couple seasons of Cosby. Of course, even those are very dated because almost no sitcoms are shot in front of audiences and the humor has become so much raunchier.

I also agree with 241 and 242.

Enterprise grew on me once they got past the horrendous time travel war. Season 4 was quite good. And Phlox is a fantastic character, one of the best of all treks.

Love Phlox. The only episode I've really enjoyed is the one where he is narrating the episode while trying to treat a plague on a two species planet. I'm still midway through season two, so the time travel war is still going. What a horrible decision. You get to explore the experience of the first human expedition into deep space and the overarching timeline is a freaking temporal cold war? Unbelievable. So many more interesting possibilities, none of them followed.

I also think Enterprise has been unfairly judged. And that's even with the fact that I routinely spit on prequels as a concept.

The show is interesting enough to keep me watching. I think the story boarding (except for the temporal cold war) is pretty well done. But they rarely do more than one story an episode (as opposed to TNG or DS9 where there are a couple things going on at once) which makes them draw it out and have ridiculous things happens to fill an hour. More importantly, Scott Bakula is just awful as a Star Fleet captain. I get that the point is that Star Fleet was rougher around the edges back then, and they wanted something of an anti-Picard, but holy cow, couldn't they get someone who had some slight amount of gravity. My wife, who watched all of TNG and DS9, saw about ten minutes of Enterprise and asked my why Archer talks to everyone like he is trying to sleep with them. His lack of presence really undercuts the show IMO.

Is this Seth McFarland produced Star Trek series re-boot happening or did I just dream that after too much domestic beer one night?

Seth McFarlane wants to reboot Star Trek on tv

This article is from 2011 so I don't know if he is still planning to do this or was just thinking out loud?

This article is from 2011 so I don't know if he is still planning to do this or was just thinking out loud?

Looks like he was just thinking out loud. I actually think the concept of Star Trek is better as a tv show than a series of movies but as long as the movies are making money, I imagine there will be no tv show.

until the 7th season, where they throw it out and make nearly everyone pine for the unbearable new Dax

Yes. I watched all of DS9 a few years back on DVD and I had no idea how important origiDax was. The whole series fell apart (perhaps coincdentally) when she left. Who knew?

That's an awful lot of Dr. Who, X-Files, and Firefly to be ignoring. (Just sayin'. Babylon 5 is HOM and HOF, no doubt.)

Dr. Who wins in career value perhaps, but on peak/run? No way. And I love me some Who. X-Files was important and very good, but I do not rate it as highly as you (obviously) - too much "Conspiracy, hinted at, but never solved (and when it was yuck)". FireFly was a great part of a season with some very good (OK fantastic) episodes, but it is much more a what might have been than a great series, to say nothing of best ever.

I thought Alien Nation was a really good show when I was in high school, but it seems entirely forgotten now.

Allow me to retrospectively caveat my statement that I have been a Bill Murray fan from SNL days. I was one of the few of my peers who thought that the show improved when Chevy Chase left and Murray took a prominent role.

Going back a bit, isn't this feeling pretty universal at this point? A lot of people might have been skeptical when Chase left, but almost everyone I know loves Murray both for SNL and his subsequent work. I thought Murray was amazing in Rushmore, but I didn't like LIT. I agree with the comments above that it felt shallow -- there's no there there. I think Sophia Coppola is a talented director, but she should probably direct other people's material. I thought the Virgin Suicides was far better.

Alien Nation is underrated (both the movie and the show).

Would Firefly be Bo Jackson or Mark Fidrych?

DS9 was greatly helped by B5, as if the competition made it better. Sure, DS9 was a less good version on B5, but it's like saying Tim Raines is a poor man's Rickey Henderson.

Throwing out the thought that Jennifer Lien, as Kes from Voyager, was the best actor/actress in all of Star Trek. I'm using the standards one usually sets out for managers - the MOY winners are those who did the most with the least amount of talent. Kes was originally written as a bland, useless character, but she ended up doing a lot with it.

Count me as one of the people unimpressed with "The Inner Light" episode of TNG. Okay, Picard lives an entire life and ends up learning a musical instrument as a result. It might as well have been The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. In neither case do I think the characters learned or changed much, given the depth of their experience.

Going back a bit, isn't this feeling pretty universal at this point?

Yeah, but back in the time, noone knew that the highlights of CC's subsequent career were going to be "Fletch" and "Vacation".

actress in all of Star Trek

I'm part way through listening to Nichelle Nichols on Neil deGrasse Tyson's recent podcast, and her story of being ready to quit ST after year 1, only to have a chance meeting with MLK who told her that he was her biggest fan, is a fun listen**.

** I'm sure that all the geeks here know this story already.

Count me as one of the people unimpressed with "The Inner Light" episode of TNG. Okay, Picard lives an entire life and ends up learning a musical instrument as a result. It might as well have been The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. In neither case do I think the characters learned or changed much, given the depth of their experience.

It was the 90's, man. No character ever developed or was given any real depth. You could pretty much tell what stereotype a character would be in the pilot episode and that is what that character would be forever after. Sure, as the actor got more comfortable in his role we might enjoy the performance more but the characters never grew out of being stock characters. Characters were always learning lessons by the end of the episode but come next week they were right back to being their same old selves.

I think Babylon 5 is the best SF show, as long as you're willing to tolerate the production values (and get through season one). Seasons 2-4 (with a little bit of help from the four or five crucial season 1 episodes) have a fully realized arc. It develops characters; it explores dark places and does so in interesting ways; it gives you a series of real, and well-earned payoffs.

The development of G'Kar and Londo as characters, both individually and their relationship with one another, is really REALLY good. And while some of the other characters have a bit too much earnestness (I'm looking at you Franklin, and to a lesser extent Ivanova) to really be believable, the general attitude really works.

I've been re-watching the whole series of TNG for the last year or so. A couple episodes a week. And while all of the criticism here is totally fair, I still think it's a great show. The problems you have to be willing to overcome:
1. Season one is just god-awful. Pretty universally. I recommend basically skipping the whole thing. You won't miss much.
2. MOST episodes have some serious, gaping holes in them. Why do the characters all behave irrationally? Why do they not employ obvious solutions? Why do technologies randomly malfunction in precise ways to ensure the desired conflicts? Because the plot demands that it be so. There are an astonishing number of episodes where the transporter won't work for some techno-babble reason, because if the transporter worked the whole plot would dissipate.
2a. The basic structure of the universe doesn't really make a lot of sense. Hostile powers exist in order to generate episodes with antagonists. Super-powerful beings exist in order to generate episodes that deal with cosmic questions. And so on.
3. A lot of episodes also suffer from episode-of-the-week-itis. That is: they really want to convey some significant message about characters and psychology and stuff - but it's hard to take it seriously because the events of the episode will play zero role in how those characters act in the future.
4. Its aggressive philosophical liberalism. Alien cultures are pretty universally monolithic. They all have distinct personalities and traits that mark them. Humans, on the other hand, are diverse and tolerant. They contain multitudes. They form communities. Yay, humanity! Except that somehow almost everyone in any position of authority is a white guy. The doctor can be a woman, of course (caregiver!), and the bad-ass security dude can be black (tough!), but most people should be white and if they want to run things they better be a dude. Unless they want to go crazy with emotions and abuse their authority (as various female admirals do when they guest-star). Funny how that works.
5. The kids. So many terrible episodes focused on children. Ugh.

All that said, if you are willing to take the episode in the context from which it's offered, there are tons of really good ones.

Most of the Picard and Data centered episodes are pretty good. Most of the Q episodes are pretty good. There aren't many, but a fair number of the Crusher episodes are actually pretty good, too. The Klingon succession episodes are pretty good.

Even within the terrible tropes, there are occasional gems. The kid-centric episodes are usually terrible, but the one where Picard is trapped with the three kids is great. And that one even gives Troi a chance to shine! Holodeck episodes are usually terrible, but the one with Moriarty from season 6 is pretty good. Time-travel ones are usually bad, but "Yesterday's Enterprise" is stupendous. The Lwaxana episodes are usually terrible, but...no, they're all terrible.

As I've been re-watching, I've been reading Keith DeCandido's re-watch blog at Tor. And that's been great. His posts, and the comments, all come from people who clearly love the show, but are absolutely aware of its defects. That usually means that people can have fun picking apart the problems, while still talking about the good stuff.

No kidding about the timelining. I've sat through maybe a dozen of them so far and I can't for life of me see what people enjoy about it. Spock is the only well acted or mildly interesting character on the show. Kirk is a ####### putz, and Shatner is a horrible actor. And I like some of the movies (II, III, IV) but I have yet to connect with the show. I will keep trying as long as I remain unemployed though.

The original trek everyone loves is the movies. I've forced myself to sit through a lot of it, and The Trouble with Tribbles is the only tenth of the way decent episode I've seen. For a show that's supposed to be progressive in it's time, the rampant racism and sexism are just too much for my sensibilities to take. But notice: in cultural portrays, Kirk is balding, Scotty is fat. Because all anybody remembers are II, III, IV, and VI (and seriously, I have to assume if you don't like VI it's because you haven't seen VI. Do it.) The episodes were awful, and can only be lovingly recalled by those who haven't seen them since the 60s.

Throwing out the thought that Jennifer Lien, as Kes from Voyager, was the best actor/actress in all of Star Trek. I'm using the standards one usually sets out for managers - the MOY winners are those who did the most with the least amount of talent. Kes was originally written as a bland, useless character, but she ended up doing a lot with it.

I'm only 2/3 of the way through season 1, but so far I can't get behind this. She's perfectly fine, but her delivery is a little too unmodulated to suggest that she's anything special. I'll agree that there is nothing to the character, at least so far. Kes has a very good memory and she was the first person to be nice to the Doctor and that's about it.

2. MOST episodes have some series, gaping holes in them. Why do the characters all behave irrationally? Why do they not employ obvious solutions? Why do technologies randomly malfunction in precise ways to ensure the desired conflicts? Because the plot demands that it be so. There are an astonishing number of episodes where the transporter won't work for some techno-babble reason, because if the transporter worked the whole plot would dissipate.
2a. The basic structure of the universe doesn't really make a lot of sense. Hostile powers exist in order to generate episodes with antagonists. Super-powerful beings exist in order to generate episodes that deal with cosmic questions. And so on.
3. A lot of episodes also suffer from episode-of-the-week-itis. That is: they really want to convey some significant message about characters and psychology and stuff - but it's hard to take it seriously because the events of the episode will play zero role in how those characters act in the future.

This brings to mind the famous Twain quote about James Fenimore Cooper.

Count me as one of the people unimpressed with "The Inner Light" episode of TNG. Okay, Picard lives an entire life and ends up learning a musical instrument as a result. It might as well have been The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. In neither case do I think the characters learned or changed much, given the depth of their experience.

We see Picard play the flute through out the rest of the show. One episode (where Worf and Alexander are go to the holodeck) starts with Picard just trying to get some flute playing in and is interrupted repeatedly. We can see, through his increasing frustration, that he really just wants to chill out and play his music. As McCoy notes, the bar for character development at that time is pretty low, so his subsequent flute playing is an indication that the experience had a significant effect on Picard.

Besides the character development issues, I think the story is just excellent. It's a personal look at the last couple of generations of a sentient species. It's a well written, well executed melancholy episode of science fiction that features heavy doses of Jean Luc Picard. I'm not sure it needs to be anything more than that to be a great episode.

and seriously, I have to assume if you don't like VI it's because you haven't seen VI. Do it.

I have not. I will check it out the next time I have the chance.

Starting Season 3 of Enterprise, already more interested. And look, marines! Should be fun to see how they fit on a Star Fleet ship.

The development of G'Kar and Londo as characters, both individually and their relationship with one another, is really REALLY good.

To my mind their relationship and character development is the best for any two characters in TV (not limited to Sci Fi). Both characters and their relationships grow and change to an astonishing degree over the seasons. Well written and well acted, it is amazaing TV. If only all the medical episodes were removed from Babylon 5. Sigh.

Out of all the ST movies the one I enjoyed was VI. The latest one was ok but it isn't really Star Trek yet so it doesn't really count. It had no real chemistry going for it since it didn't have the advantage of numerous seasons of shows to build that chemistry. Instead Whedon just mashed everybody up together and simply expected them all to click.

I even dressed up as Data one year for Halloween

Thomas Riker for me. Mostly because I have a beard, and the only Star Trek uniform I own is a gold one.

EDIT: Also this was about three years ago.

This seems like the sort of crowd that would appreciate a comic about the TNG characters LARPing DS9.

although I liked Star Trek, I wasn't as much into it as I became with BSG. I think that series was very well written and although there are those that didnt care much for the series end I think it was one of the best sci-fi shows ever.

The latest one was ok but it isn't really Star Trek yet so it doesn't really count. It had no real chemistry going for it since it didn't have the advantage of numerous seasons of shows to build that chemistry. Instead Whedon just mashed everybody up together and simply expected them all to click.

Abrams, not Whedon.

I thought the first three seasons of BSG were as good as any sci fi ever produced. That I ultimately was very dissapointed in the series has more to do with the promise it showed- sort of Dwight Gooden type career.

Abrams, not Whedon.

Abrams will be doing the new Star Wars, too. I think Brad Bird would have been better.

Amend that to the first 1.5 seasons of BSG, and I'll agree.

I thought it took a serious nosedive after the resolution of the mid-season cliffhanger in season two. And everything from season 3 onward was baffling and aggravating.

I should clarify that it's comparable to a typical sitcom from that era, e.g., Growing Pains, Head of the Class, Mr. Belvedere, My Two Dads. Not the top tier ones like Cheers or the first couple seasons of Cosby.

You know, I didn't really think about this, but it's true. My kids are 8-15 and for a few years I've been lamenting the fact that there are no prime time shows that are appropriate for them. The only thing is a few reality shows (the ones that are mostly positive like DWTS or BL).

But actually, all of the family friendly sitcoms have basically shifted to Disney Channel. And there's a ton of them (Wizards of Waverly Place, Good Luck Charlie, Pair of Kings, Austin & Ally, etc.). Now, I'm not saying that they are good, but they are clearly the successors to the shows you listed.

Abrams will be doing the new Star Wars, too. I think Brad Bird would have been better.

And I would have gone with David Fincher. C'est la vie.

I'm geeky enough to find it disconcerting that Abrams is doing both Star Trek and Star Wars. It seems wrong.

I predict I will be dissapointed by the new Star Wars, but it will not tarnish the franchise for me, and yes I think Star Tours is the best ride in Disney World, why do you ask?

I think Brad Bird would have been better.

Agree. Everything he touches turns to gold. Speaking of which, I am going to finally watch Ghost Protocol and see if it is as good as everyone says.

Abrams will be doing the new Star Wars, too. I think Brad Bird would have been better.


And I would have gone with David Fincher. C'est la vie.

Clearly we can all agree that I would have been the best choice. But I was, you know, busy. Too bad for them.

I am so happy we got away from the torture tangent I introduced in this thread. Mea culpa, folks.

I think that TNG holds up pretty well to any drama of its time, and that the problems cited above is based in part to the increased serialization that has occurred in television since the turn of the century. These days even network dramas are expected to have more than just case of the week episodes. If I had to pick 1990s hour-long dramas that were better than TNG, I'd probably only be able to firmly choose Homicide.

I predict I will be dissapointed by the new Star Wars, but it will not tarnish the franchise for me, and yes I think Star Tours is the best ride in Disney World, why do you ask?

Nothing can be as bad as the last 3 Star Wars movies and I will take your Star Tours and raise it with a Space Mountain.

I think that TNG holds up pretty well to any drama of its time, and that the problems cited above is based in part to the increased serialization that has occurred in television since the turn of the century. These days even network dramas are expected to have more than just case of the week episodes. If I had to pick 1990s hour-long dramas that were better than TNG, I'd probably only be able to firmly choose Homicide.

I stopped watching around 2002, but ER was great for a while. And there's the X-Files and Law and Order of course. But I agree that the 90's weren't a great time for TV dramas. Or maybe it's just that the last 10 years have been SO good that the 90's seem weak in comparison. TNG, Homicide, X Files, and ER probably match up pretty well with the dramas of any earlier decade. In fact, I remember a NY Times magazine cover story from around 1996 asking whether we were in a golden age of TV.

Over the last 10 years we've had:
Sopranos
BSG
Breaking Bad
West Wing
House
The Wire
Lost
Deadwood
Alias
24
Downton Abbey
The Walking Dead
Damages
Game of Thrones
Mad Men
Friday Night Lights

I haven't watched all of those series, but that's an impressive group of shows.

And for sitcoms we've had:
Malcolm in the Middle
Curb Your Enthusiasm
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Louie
Archer
Parks and Rec
The Office
Arrested Development
etc.

For 90's hour long dramas TNG only really holds up well if we limit the discussion to the first half of that decade otherwise it will get crushed by everything that came in the latter half of the decade.

First half had:
Twin Peaks
TNG
X-Files
Law & Order
NYPD Blue
Northern Exposure
Melrose Place
Homicide
Lois & Clark
My So Called Life
Party of Five
Sliders
Adventures of Brisco County Jr
Quantum Leap


Not a great bunch when compared to all that came after that in the decade.

Although just barely, the last 10 years also includes Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

a nuanced fleshing out of three big time Star Trek species (Klingons, Cardassians, and Ferengi)

nuanced? Ferengi?

When introduced in TNG the Ferengi were largely one dimensional but vaguely sinister, in DS9 they were comic relief, their "culture" was someones idea of a parody of capitalism.

The Cardassians OTOH almost got interesting- BTW anyone read Andrew Robinson's (Garak) Star Trek Novel? One of the absolute best Star Trek/Star Wars etc etc novels ever written- he did a tremendous job of explaining a coherent Cardassian culture without violating/reconnng what was shown about them on screen

The Cardassians OTOH almost got interesting- BTW anyone read Andrew Robinson's (Garak) Star Trek Novel? One of the absolute best Star Trek/Star Wars etc etc novels ever written- he did a tremendous job of explaining a coherent Cardassian culture without violating/reconnng what was shown about them on screen

Yes, he is quite interesting. I think he and Alexander Siddig actually wrote a little Garack/Bashir play together.

When introduced in TNG the Ferengi were largely one dimensional but vaguely sinister, in DS9 they were comic relief, their "culture" was someones idea of a parody of capitalism.

I strongly disagree. It may start out that way, but once the show really gets going, there is more depth to the culture. Quark, who is one of the best characters on the show, is an unabashedly traditional Ferengi. If the culture was strictly parody, he would have become loathsome at some point. The Rules of Acquisition that are quoted on the show are genuinely clever and sensible.

It's Star Trek, so of course there is some of the standard "Our way is better than their way" to it, but the Ferengi culture gets fleshed out far more than it had been before and it's certainly more even handed than the TNG representation of Ferengi. Quark's sincere speech to the Gamma Quadrant alien in Starship Down about Ferengi values is a great example of how DS9 hasn't simply reduced the culture to a parody of capitalism.

While many of the Ferengi centric episodes are comic, the treatment of the culture and the three main Ferengi characters, is not a one note joke. Their treatment is far more sophisticated than their treatment in any of the other Star Trek series.

BTW anyone read Andrew Robinson's (Garak) Star Trek Novel?

I haven't, but I have heard good things.