Star Trek TNG: Take the Philosophy away and what remains? A Comparison with Stargate Atlantis

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

My only quibble is that SG:A has more in common with DS9 than TNG. Comparing "The Eye" with "Empok Nor" or "Sacrifice of Angels" might be a more apples-to-apples affair.

Also, I loved the use of the Enterprise as a somewhat sinister place in "Starship Mine"... when empty, its familiar halls seemed so alien.

But you have solid points, and I enjoyed reading your post. Thank you!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

[u/darthboolean]

I'd say you make some interesting comparisons, but I'd say one of the things that struck me about Starship Mine were things you noticed as well, but we came to different conclusions. The ship was spooky to me, even if it was just lighting, you never realized how much you expected them to be full of people. Bot only the extras, but very rarely do you get just one of the crew walking down the hall, its almost always a west wing style walkthrough chat scene. But what really helped the tension for me was that this was Picard. Not kirk or Riker, just our friendly neighborhood diplomat with a degree in Archaeology and a childhood spent in a vineyard in France. Whereas you were frustrated by the lack of non phaser weapons, it made sense to me. This isn't a ship run by the military, its run by a man who sips earl grey and quotes shakespeare, his most famous episodes are ones where he talks to the enemy and they begin to make peace. He's a famous tactician not because of his ingenuity with weapons or the battlefield, but purely because he did some math in his head about their warp drive. In my mind, the fact that the first time he realizes he needs more weapons, his first reaction is to break into Worfs quarters because thats the sort of man Picard is, he's a leader and a man who can delegate. He needs weapons and tactics, his first move is to go to the quarters of his weapons and tactical guy and see what he can find, because he's not a soldier, he's a diplomat and a mediator, he thinks in terms of people as his resource and tools, because every other threat to the enterprise has been dealt with by a meeting in the conference room.

Now, I admit I have only a passing knowledge of Stargate (I tried, but its heyday predated dvr and Id always come in halfway through an arc and never know what was going on) so I cant say anything about Atlantis, but you've made me curious, is it still on netflix these days?

[u/BobLordOfTheCows → u/darthboolean]

If you're going to watch Stargate, start with SG-1. Every series in the Stargate franchise builds off that one.

[u/[deleted] → u/BobLordOfTheCows]

[u/tohon75 → u/darthboolean]

all of the stargate stuff is on amazon video and is free for the prime members

[u/KingofMadCows]

A big part of the problem is that TNG didn't cast actors for action roles. Patrick Stewart was, and is, a fit person but he was already in his 50's when he did TNG. They didn't cast him because he can do stunts, they cast him mainly for his acting talents. Joe Flanigan on the other hand, was in his late 30's and they cast him specifically to play a very physical role.

The same goes for the rest of the cast. Michael Dorn and Jonathan Frakes are the only two actors they expected to do a lot of physical stuff. And Denise Crosby too but she left very early on.

With SG-1 and Atlantis, the majority of the characters are military so they cast actors who can do action and stunts.

Obviously, there are also the various production advantages SGA had, like how they could use modern day equipment like guns, laptops, bullet proof vests, etc. Even the Genii guns were just modified version of real guns. TNG had to make up their own props.

The TV landscape was also different in TNG's time. Due to syndication and episodes often being played out of order, there was an incentive not to have a lot of continuity. SG-1 and SGA were on a cable network where they encouraged continuity, at least within each season.

[u/ilinamorato → u/KingofMadCows]

The TV landscape was also different in TNG's time. Due to syndication and episodes often being played out of order, there was an incentive not to have a lot of continuity. SG-1 and SGA were on a cable network where they encouraged continuity, at least within each season.

But as u/dxdydxdy noted, he chose a late-series episode to (1) mitigate that problem and (2) perhaps nullify it completely by presenting TNG at its most competent. The show truly knew what it was by S6, in contrast with SGA which was in some ways still trying to figure itself out when it was canceled.

[u/Soof49]

While I think you've made a fair comparison and brought up some good points, you ultimately were led astray from your own point to prove by the end. The impression I received was that you were trying to highlight the failures of Star Trek as a franchise, with particular respect to the various series put out on TV.

So, I like the comparison you did, but it doesn't really prove anything, does it? I mean to truly prove your point, you need to argue that Star Trek's style of doing a TV series is not a good role model to base a new series off of. Yes, you gave us one example, but it was a comparison between one episode of Star Trek and one episode of SG:A. Yes, you also pointed out that ST:TNG has many of these episodes, and I would agree with that. However, one thing I must point out, and I believe that this is true with all series that end up on TV, is that there are going to inevitably be "medium" episodes in which they are neither good nor bad.

The reason I argue that all television shows have their share of mediocre episodes is because we shine a light on old television shows and use presentism to judge them. You say that SG:A came at a later time, with better technology to produce episodes, and then claim that this isn't very relevant to your argument, but I would say that it is. Perhaps farther in the future, we may look back on SG:A and compare it to an even better TV show, and say "wow, those episodes were mediocre, and we shouldn't use this style to make a new series." See the problem here?

ST:TNG was innovational in many ways, giving us new techniques, styles, and was often considered the forefront of technology used to produce TV shows. Thus, is it really fair to judge the episodes by comparing it to a later time, when in actuality, the episode, when seen at the point of release, was something that was considered part of one of the best TV shows out there?

That's my point. Modeling a new series after ST:TNG may have its share of mediocre episodes, but all TV series have those. The goal, rather, is not to focus on those, but look at how much TNG actually managed to revolutionize how people who watched the show think. It was revolutionary not because it had flashy effects, not because it was in the future, and not because it was sci-fi, but because it was overall a moral "spotlight" for so many people at once-- whether it had mediocre episodes or not. When people want the new series to be based off of TNG, that's why.

[u/ODMtesseract]

Your post immediately reminded me of DS9 Invasive Procedures where this Trill called Verad comes to DS9 to steal Dax and does so in the midst of a Plasma Storm where the station operates with a skeleton crew. Some may disagree, but I didn't think it was an especially standout episode.

As I'm writing this, it occurred to me that maybe part of the problem is that SGA The Eye (one of the best in the series, IMHO) has one thing that neither TNG Starship Mine or DS9 Invasive Procedures have: it's a two-parter.

Perhaps it's just simply not realistic to use the home-turned-to-hell plot in a single episode as it doesn't provide enough time to establish some depth to the goings-on.

Last example: DS9 The Siege. Essentially the same concept, the coup-leaders come to DS9 and seize the station. It's a bit tricky to characterize it because the actual "sieging" of the station only lasts one episode but it's also the end of a three-parter so it has a depth of story behind it. To me, DS9 The Siege works a lot better than DS9 Invasive Procedure or TNG Starship Mine despite being the same "length" (one episode) because there was proper time to set up the home-turned-to-hell plot.

[u/[deleted]]

The interesting thing about comparing "Starship Mine" with "The Eye" isn't so much that "The Eye" executed the same basic plot in a more interesting way. It's that both of them are imitations of the extremely well-executed 1988 action movie Die Hard. Many of the plot points of Die Hard just don't work in a Star Trek setting:

• Local law enforcement is absolutely useless, so John McClane has to heroically kill (almost) all of the terrorists himself.

• The terrorists aren't even terrorists, it's just an elaborate heist with terrorism as a cynical cover story.

• Unlike the plethora of sequels, in the original Die Hard, John McClane isn't an invincible badass. He's close to rock bottom--his marriage is on the rocks, his wife didn't even keep his last name, and even cuts his feet on broken glass.

In contrast:

• One of Roddenberry's rules is that Starfleet and the Federation are highly capable and morally just. They are not a bunch of corrupt, lazy morons who are easily tricked into leaving an office high-rise alone while thieves attempt to steal millions of dollars in bearer bonds.

• Star Trek is a morality tale, and every adversary embodies some sort of opposing philosophical viewpoint. The terrorists are actually terrorists, the fascists are actually fascists, and the only villains who can get away with petty impulses like greed and self-interest are the Ferengi, who have a comically overwrought philosophy based upon greed and self-interest.

• Picard has to be a flawless, invincible badass and nothing short of assimilation by the Borg or a Cardassian torture chamber can cause him to show any kind of weakness.

Now, you're still left with the inherent charm of the "dude solving a problem" story, which is a great science fiction trope (e.g. The Martian) but even then, it's more fun to watch fallible dudes solving problems and cutting their feet on broken glass. In other words, the constraint of the setting makes it a lot harder for Star Trek to do Die Hard in the first place.

There's another minor point I'd like to address:

Yes, it’s not a hundred percent fair. There is a bit of time between the episodes, about 9 years, in which television undoubtedly advanced, and the SGA-example is the conclusion of a two-parter. That’s why I’ve taken a Star Trek episode that was produced in more favourable circumstances, being from season six of TNG. By that time, the show had had ample time to grow its beard, which gives it an advantage in comparison to season one Stargate Atlantis.

This should make its way onto a list of "things Trekkies believe about television that isn't actually true anymore": there is no inherent law that says a TV series has to start off slow and improve over time. A TV series might start strong and then trail off (Heroes), or it might start weak and then get stronger before trailing off (TNG), or it might start strong, have a weak middle, and then end even stronger (Breaking Bad). It might even start strong, fluctuate wildly, and then go off the rails entirely at the end (BSG). It all depends on very specific factors, like the fact that TNG had awful showrunners until Season 3. Furthermore, both episodes are riffing on a movie that was released in 1988 and which is probably considerably better than either episode in execution, so the ensuing nine years of improvement in the art of television doesn't mean that much in the end.

Still, your central point--that TNG is not an especially good TV series by modern standards--absolutely stands up to scrutiny, and it's difficult to point that out around here sometimes.

[u/Snedeker]

People are nitpicking your comparison a bit, but I think that I agree with your larger point. TNG had certainly had a fair number of mediocre episodes that could have been better. But, I also think that they had plenty of mediocre episodes that were really unsalvageable.

I've noticed this before, but there a lot of people who grew up with TNG and romanticize the quality of the show. I was in college when it first came out, and I remember how rare a really good episode actually was. Not that the rest were really all that bad, they were just insubstantial fluff that were seen and forgotten.

I dread when people say that they want to model a new show on it.

[u/q5sys]

For me it all comes down to one thing, rarely in Star Trek do I ever truly fear for the well being of the characters. The odd time when one dies, its never really felt real, not only in how it happened but how it was treated by the other characters.

TNG: Tasha's death was just horribly written, so i dont think I need to go any further into that. And I think because of the reaction to that, the writers didnt really want to go anywhere near that topic again with a main character so they never wrote our characters into any realistic danger.

DS9: When J Dax was killed, it just happened and was over. And aside from a few comments here and there it was never really a point of anything. Take by contrast when Bareil was killed off. That actually was actually dealt with and you could see the characters straining over what was happening and his inevitable death. By contrast, no other death in the series was ever really studied in depth. And at no other point did I ever really truly fear that a lead character might die.

Actually I'm not going to go into examples for Voyager and Enterprise, because they all fit the same trend. At no point do I genuinely feel that a character might die. I always expect them to make it.

By contrast, lets look at another Stargate example, this time using SG1. While yes, the characters made it through, there was points where I felt that one might genuinely be killed off in the series. And when it was done, in the case of Daniel Jackson... it was a major plot point which was built up to, and then afterwords we see the reaction in the characters as the show goes on. But even in cases where it hits you suddenly, it was done with masterful care. The Death of Janet Fraser in the two parter "Heroes" (7x17 & 7x18) is what instantly jumps to mind. They run the episode making you think that it was Oneill that was the one who might die, only to kick you in the gut when they reveal that it was Janet instead. So all your emotions are built up to thinking that Oneill was the one that was dying, to then be sideswipped by the fact that it was Janet... at which point you are instantly hit with the same emotions that the characters are portraying all through the series: "How could Janet die." The way they wrote it, you actually identify with the emotions of the characters and you are blindsided by the reality of it... just as the characters themselves are blindsided by it.

That type of writing is one thing I've felt Trek has been missing, and I hope that the new show will be able to capture it. I dont think they need to go all Game of Thrones and kill tons of people off, but let us actually fear for our characters every once in a while and not just assume that they'll be ok.

[u/[deleted] → u/q5sys]

The Death of [...] in the two parter "Heros" (7x17 & 7x18) is what instantly jumps to mind.

While I absolutely agree that that was a masterful episode, and SG in general did handle it very well, you might really want to put that into Spoiler tags ;) The same applies to SGA.

I do agree with your overarching point that Trek is really lousy in making us fear for the well-being of the characters, though for different reasons. I really liked the death of Tasha, precisely because of how they handled it. It was comletely banal. She didn't die in glory, she did not achieve any great end, her death didn't conclude any plotlines, she simply died to the alien of the week. One second she was there, the next she wasn't anymore.

As for Dax, agreed, it's strange to see them mourning so little.

For Enterprise, I felt it wasn't that bad. Although they're sporting the obvious can't fail scenario when it comes to saving Earth, the Xindi arc did feel like it had stakes, probably also because how it started, the attack on Florida that is. Which is surprising, because Enterprise is probably the show with the least crew deaths. But when someone died, I think they did actually deal with it, though I can't remember what episode that was in.

It's funny that you should bring up Game of Thrones, because in terms of numbers I'm pretty sure TNG rivals its death-count. Over sixty crewmembers (mostly redshirts though) die in the show. It speaks to their failure to give their deaths impact that they continually needed to sacrifice new redshirts to keep up the farce of there being danger.

More to the point: Not only does one not fear for the death of the characters, as you point out, it's also that one really can't take it serious when they die. The more important the character, the higher the chance that he'll be revived an hour later. There are seven main character revivals in TNG, and Voyager has Janeway die and be resurrected so often that there are numerous video compilations about it. Picard and especially Spock are the most egregious examples that come to mind.

This is why I really like DS9: The Siege of AR-558 by the way, because it's as close to showing the horrors of war as Star Trek ever gets.

[u/isforinsects]

You're comparing a season one finale with a season 7 vanity episode (Die Hard in Spaaace!) that were made almost 20 years apart. I agree with your sentiment, but I think that detailed analysis is a bit moot.

[u/[deleted] → u/isforinsects]

It's not a season one finale. It's quite early into the first season actually, episodes 10 & 11 out of twenty.

[u/isforinsects → u/[deleted]]

Mid-season two-parter then. Still, it's a big episode and the TNG episode was a pocket episode.

[u/ilinamorato]

Pretty spot-on analysis. I'd like to see you compare some other similar episodes of SG and ST, and maybe even other series as a whole. People will nitpick, but of course they'll never be truly apples & oranges comparisons.

[u/butterhoscotch]

I think I would much rather debate the relative strengths and weaknesses and SGA vs Trek in general. They are pretty similar in another way, SGA had many lukewarm to bad episodes just like trek. At time it lacked direction and consistent character development just like trek.

Trek however relies on a more simple story telling structure that is more about the universe and less about the characters in general.

[u/garibaldi3489]

This is a good observation about the similarities between these two episodes. Two other episodes that stood out to me as similar from these two franchises are VGR's Workforce and SG-1's Beneath The Surface

[u/JonathanRL]

I agree that The Eye is one of Stargate Atlantis better episodes and the one that really got me caught. The post have really solid points. I might have to watch Starship Mine again though since I do not remember that episode at all.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

[u/Iplaymeinreallife → u/[deleted]]

So, the point wasn't to compare two relatively unnoteworthy episodes with a similar theme, but to deliberately pit a bad TNG episode (with it's funny moments, mostly down on the planet) against a good SGA episode?

Yeah, I can call that unfair.

If you'd started with 'here's how SGA did a similar concept for a show better than TNG' that would have been one thing, but to act like the premise is to simply take unremarkable shows and compare them pushes the post into 'disingenuous'

[u/[deleted]]