If TNG had only had three seasons....

[Eddie Roth]

Ah, to be back! First post in years for me, it seems... Yes, well, after a long Trek sabbatical, I finally found I'm in the mood to watch some TNG again recently. And this time, I noticed something weird about I have never felt before watching the show....

Now that TNG turns 20 (incredible, by the way) its first few episodes seem so old I almost see no difference anymore to TOS. You know, like when you listen to some old Rock music and you can't decide whether it's from the 60s or 70s because it's simply, well, old and, by virtue of quality, classic? I especially noticed that feeling while watching "Code of Honor" which somehow I always enjoyed back in the early 90s when I was a kid. Now I realize I like it again, in a nostalgic, "feels like TOS" kind of way. But, as we all know, that particular episode is kind of hated in fandom and, yes, everywhere. And that got me thinking... the TOS fans get some enjoyment out of all the 79 original episodes, even the bad ones appear to have a certain fanbase, if only for their camp value. But somehow, for the corresponding TNG episodes, this doesn't seem to be the case. "Code of Honor", for example, is just regarded as bad.

Might that be because TNG fans have a lot more episodes to choose from? Cause I remember that I went back to watch my less-than-favorite TOS episodes far more often than my less-than-favorite TNGs (which is probably why I only now realize small things such as the TOS-esque music in Code of Honor or even scenes I don't recall ever seeing).

So what if TNG had only had three seasons like TOS? Would we cherish the ones we got more than we do now that it had 7 years? This of course ties in with the old "audience fatigue"/"jaded fans" discussion where the argument was that since there was so much Star Trek at some point that whatever episode did not meet the high standard set before was immediately and completely rejected as rubbish, never to be watched again whereas during a drought like, say, the 70s where there were only the 79 episodes, people savored even the worse examples of Trek because they were Trek.

To talk from personal experience, a few years ago, I watched all of TOs in order, when it was released on DVD. When I got around to And The Children Shall Lead, I loathed it. Just didn't hold up against all the other classics I had just immediately watched before it. BUT a few years before that, during a time when I hadn't watched Trek at all for a while and I suddenly got into the mood to watch an episode, I got out my VHS of the same episode and enjoyed it a lot - even if it was just because it was, well, an adventure featuring Kirk and Spock and it was Star Trek, even if the story itself had its problems. Is the perceived quality of an episode just dependant upon the "competition" it has from others?

And if we imagine that somehow TNG had been cancelled at the end of Season 3, would we perhaps hold shows like Code of Honor, Angel One, or even Shades of Gray in a little higher esteem?

And... (Gosh, this is becoming one confusing post here! )... how would a three-season TNG stack up against TOS? Still as good? Or would the Best of Both Worlds and Measure of a Mans, and Q Whos, and Yesterday's Enterprises not be enough to make TNG a worthy successor to TOS's classic shows?

 

[CaptainJon]

No please! Don't do that! That summer was long enough already!

Seriously, if TNG had only lasted three seasons, I don't think the first two would be trashed as much as they are these days. If you look at both of the first two seasons, there are a number of very good episodes that standout as some of Trek's best. I agree with what you said that the quality of the following seasons (I think of 3, 4, 5 & most of 6) became greater. An episode watched in 1988 where we reacted, "That was okay," watched again in 1992-93 after so many better episodes became "Wow, that really wasn't all that good". The series average went up.

And you're right. There are episodes that were just plain bad, even at the time, but they probably would've developed a cult following in some way those bad episodes of TOS did ("Spock's Brain" is widely considered as being so bad it's laughable), simply because there would have only been 73 episodes of TNG to choose from instead of 179 (I think that's the right number, correct me if I'm wrong).

How would TNG have held up against TOS if both were only three seasons? I think it would've held up pretty well, but it's really hard to say. TOS start strong, drifted a little in season 2, then started downhill in season 3. TNG, on the other hand, grew better with age, and the season 3 classics of BoBW and Yesterday's Enterprise would've helped to not only hold TNG up, but set it apart as not being a TOS-clone, but as being its own Trek. Season 3 was when TNG became its own Star Trek, and I think that turning point season alone helped distinguish TNG from its predecessor.

I am a fan of both series, and I find great entertainment in both. There are very few episodes from either series (I can't think of any, really) that I can't sit through more than once. Even the bad ones. I'm not trying to start anything, but I can't say the same for VOY or ENT. On my list of favorite series, it goes DS9, TNG and then TOS, all very, very close. The only reason I would really say TNG is above TOS is because I grew up on it. Like many people grew up on TOS and hold onto it for sentimental value, I am the same with TNG. I enjoy the richness and depth of scale of DS9 and the grittiness that was brought to DS9, placing it at the top of my list, and it was a Trek that evolved and tried to be different and challenging, something lost in later Trek.

Anyway, I don't want to break off onto a tangent of how Trek has stood still since the end of DS9. I've done that in other places. This is about TOS and TNG. Both hold a very special place in my heart, and like I said, for me the reason why TNG is higher on my list is because I grew up with it. But both are great series.

 

[tomalak301]

I would have been pissed if TNG were cancelled at the end of season 3. If it had 3 seasons, I probably wouldn't regard it as highly because Seasons 1 and 2 had some bad episodes (Despite the fact that I like those seasons) but it was Season 3 when TNG came to it's own. It felt like it became it's own show, away from trying to imitate Star Trek and it was better for it. Could you imagine if we get "Mr. Worf, Fire" and the series was cancelled. That might have actually done more damage to Trekdom than cancelling Enterprise.

 

[Good Will Riker]

If TNG was cancelled after its 3rd season, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country would have been the only Trek in town for Star Trek's 25th anniversary celebration in 1991, and TNG would have been touted as a cancelled series and a failure in the eyes of many fans.

TNG itself had to succeed beyond the hype generated by "The Best of Both Worlds, Part I" to establish its place in pop culture history. When TNG made it to its 5th season in 1991, and celebrated Star Trek's 25th anniversary alongside TOS, is when I believe TNG was able to stand confidently on its own.

Fans also tend to forget how unpopular Patrick Stewart was as Captain Picard during TNG's first 3 seasons. Until the 4th season, Picard was compared unfavorably to the more established Captain Kirk, and Picard lost out on many polls between the 2 captains, due to his old age and grumpy personality. Thankfully, Michael Piller did a lot to change the way the fans viewed Captain Picard, and the show's popularity skyrocketed along with its own captain.

Sure, I may not be a fan of what happend to the character of William Riker after season 3, but I myself now believe that the writers did not know what else to do with the Riker character once he decided to remain onboard as first officer after "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II." The only logical evolution for this character was for him to be promoted to captain after serving 3 years aboard the Enterprise-D as its first officer. Without that career advancement, this character with so much potential became "just ordinary." Thankfully, the man behind this character was given many opportunities to shine behind the camera since then.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I think for me it would be the reverse of TOS. TOS started out great, went down to good in season 2 and bad in the final season. TNG OTOH started out bad, went up to good in season 2 and then got great in the 3rd season. I would've been sad at the lost potential and pissed at the show ending on a fantastic cliffhanger. I'd probably consider the worst episodes wasted potential and the reason why TNG had failed so bitterly.

 

[Eddie Roth]

I must say personally that, not considering a hypothetical unresolved cliffhanger, I think fans in general might hold early TNG episodes in higher regard if they had been the only ones, for the reasons stated in my original post: If there are only so many to choose from, you value them more - that's how rare things become so valueable...

And in that case, "The Survivors" might actually be regarded as one of Star Trek's all-time best episodes instead of the largely forgotten gem that it is...

 

[Good Will Riker]

Eddie Roth said:
I must say personally that, not considering a hypothetical unresolved cliffhanger, I think fans in general might hold early TNG episodes in higher regard if they had been the only ones, for the reasons stated in my original post: If there are only so many to choose from, you value them more - that's how rare things become so valueable...

This is my personal opinion, having watched TNG from Day 1 since its debut in 1987 with "Encounter at Farpoint," but I consider TNG to be "2 shows," rather than one:

1.) Seasons 1-2
2.) Seasons 3-7

Between the look and feel of Season 1 compared to that of Season 2, I prefer Season 1. Although Season 2's best episodes are better than the majority of Season 1 episodes, the stinkers from Season 2 are considerably worse than the stinkers from Season 1. The Season 1 stinkers are at least watchable, but Season 2 stinkers are just too unbearable to re-watch (The Brigloidi, Pakleds, Sarjenka, etc. ).

And in that case, "The Survivors" might actually be regarded as one of Star Trek's all-time best episodes instead of the largely forgotten gem that it is...

Whatever format whoever was in charge of writing this particular episode used became "the formula" for your subsequent TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT episodes. All subsequent episodes have the same beat and structure to them. And the technobabble became incessantly unbearable sometime during the 4th Season, when the writers began using that as a crutch to resolve the climax of more and more of their later episodes.

Ronald D. Moore considers TNG's 6th Season to be the creative apex of this show, and I agree with him. It was all pretty much downhill from there (Except for "All Good Things..."), including the 4 TNG feature films.

 

[CaptainJon]

Good Will Riker said:
This is my personal opinion, having watched TNG from Day 1 since its debut in 1987 with "Encounter at Farpoint," but I consider TNG to be "2 shows," rather than one:

1.) Seasons 1-2
2.) Seasons 3-7

I agree wholeheartedly with this, but with one variation. In some ways, Season 3 is almost a different kind of show from the preceding and following seasons. I say that because every time I watch an episode from Season 3, it just has this different kind of feel to it. It feels more fresh then Seasons 4-7. Not that I don't like those seasons or anything, but the style and tone of Seasons 5-7 were all similar. Season 4, too, from episode to episode had a different style, although I would say about mid-season it hit that same-old-same-old style and tone that would last the remainder of its run.

 

[Unicron]

Jack Bauer said:
I think for me it would be the reverse of TOS. TOS started out great, went down to good in season 2 and bad in the final season. TNG OTOH started out bad, went up to good in season 2 and then got great in the 3rd season. I would've been sad at the lost potential and pissed at the show ending on a fantastic cliffhanger. I'd probably consider the worst episodes wasted potential and the reason why TNG had failed so bitterly.

I agree. S1 and 2 both have mixed bags, and there are good eps in each. There are enough bad or meh ones to show that TNG was still getting its legs. But S3 was really when the show started to pick up, and we started to get some excellent eps - "The Defector" and "Yesterday's Enterprise" being good examples. And of course, we got the first end-season cliffhanger with BOBW.

"Mr. Worf... fire!"

 

[Eddie Roth]

I would also like to add that a three-season TNG would've had about the same ratio of good-to-average-to-bad-episodes as TOS had. What TNG had as its first season, TOS had as its third.

(And to THAT I would like to add that both those seasons are sometimes overly criticized... IMO even the bad episodes have lots of charm and entertainment in them...)

 

[JamesSmith]

If TNG cancelled after its third season, there would be no DS9 or Voyager or Enterprise, there would be no Generations or First Contact or Insurrection or Nemesis.

 

[Eddie Roth]

^^ Yes, but this is not what this is about. In certain respects, actually, I might've preferred it that way...

 

[Warped9]

If there had been only the first three seasons of TNG there very probably wouldn't have been anymore tv Trek for a very long time. Considering what we did get post 1990 that actually mightn't have been a bad thing.

I actually prefer TNG's first three seasons to the latter four even as clumsy as some of the episodes are. If S3's polish had come along sooner like midway through S1 then the show might have been something noteworthy. Now it's basically a "shrug" thats pretty much fallen off the radar.

 

[davejames]

I don't think TNG's first 3 seasons would have compared NEARLY as well with TOS's.

While it's true TOS season 3 is mostly crap, the first two seasons are almost flawless. There's probably only 3 or 4 duds in the entire group, which is a lot more than you can say for TNG or any of the other series.

Even when TNG and DS9 (which I love) hit their stride midway through, they STILL weren't as consistently good as TOS was those first two years.

 

[diankra]

Good Will Riker said:
If TNG was cancelled after its 3rd season, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country would have been the only Trek in town for Star Trek's 25th anniversary celebration in 1991, and TNG would have been touted as a cancelled series and a failure in the eyes of many fans.

But... after the flop of Final Frontier, Undiscovered Country was only commissioned because TNG was a success (showing it was the film noit the franchise that had failed), and Paramount wanted a Trek film to fill the gap between Trek V and a potential TNG film after a seven year run.
So if TNG had been doing so badly it went down at season three, then probably no Trek VI either.

PS: I don't remember Patrick Stewart being anything other than praised pretty much from the start. Certainly visiting the US in summer 1989 and going to a con, it was already only the die-hard Kirk fans who hadn't been won over.

 

[UnknownSample]

Would this fandom still be around now, with a 1990 NG cancellation? Anyway, of course everyone left in any fandom would give those earlier episodes more attention... "The Survivors" is neglected now? It shouldn't be...

For me it wouldn't make any difference, because if we still got DS9 later, I would rather have seen Next Gen go, not long after season three, maybe a third of the way into season four. Those last years were painful, waiting for it to become vital again.

 

[Eddie Roth]

Well, there are very active fandoms (can "fandom" be pluralized? Uh.... ) out there who have had far less "material" to obsess over, and far longer in the past. Star Wars fans for example. So I'm thinking we would still be around. Besides, I don't think a cancellation of TNG after three seasons would've necessarily been seen as a failure. TOS only had three after all and I don't think anybody would've thought TNG would go 7 seasons in the end. That just became a sort of benchmark after TNG had done it...

 

[kakashi76767]

I think the real turning point of tng was the last episode of season 2, "the neutral zone." It was only with the addition of serious recurring foes like the romulans, borg, cardassians and Lohr, and recurring allies like the klingons, that the show gained continuity. these enemies needed time to develop, and so 3 seasons would have crippled the show. i would probably not be a big fan.

------------
"What is the name of your vessel?"
Riker - "The lollipop. She's a good ship."

 

[Hoshi_Mayweather]

At the time, arc's were not really written into shows.

If TNG was written as a 3 year show with a beginning, middle, and end...we probably would have had a winner. (Although, I think 5 years would have been cool to at least develop the characters).

Who knows if there was a DSN or VOY in the wings?

A sidenote: I think it would have been closer to TOS, rather than having only two seasons like its predecessor. (Albeit, with stronger writing).

 

[UnknownSample]

I think the real turning point of tng was the last episode of season 2, "the neutral zone." It was only with the addition of serious recurring foes like the romulans, borg, cardassians and Lohr, and recurring allies like the klingons, that the show gained continuity. these enemies needed time to develop, and so 3 seasons would have crippled the show. i would probably not be a big fan.

This was probably a typo... Neutral Zone was the second to last episode in season one, not two. We got the best Romulan episodes we were ever going to get in s3 I think. Good Klingon episodes...
-----------------------------
I often think of a 3 year Next Gen, starting late in season one, and running partway through s4. That covers the vital period of the show, before ossification set in.
=========
Better yet, a 3 year season compiled from all seasons, removing all the filler, all the ones they came up with because they had to have another episode that week. Just take the inspired stories that were presumably labors of love for those involved, and it might make up 3 seasons' worth. Then Next Gen would look so much different, like something as special as TOS.
--------------------------------
I'd be disappointed and left wanting more, but a 3 year Next Gen could very well build up the same sort of following TOS did. NG really looked like it was going to keep getting better and better. That sense of a show having been cut off in its prime can really fuel a fandom.