Star Trek: TNG had way too much exposition.

[Rabrrrrrr]

Which I hadn't noticed anywhere near the extent of which until now that I've gone through two seasons of Battlestar Galactica which has basically no exposition at all, ever, requiring me to constantly rewind and try to figure out what the hell is going on, but which comes across as far, far better writing.

Not that I don't like ST:TNG - the writing on the show really was at a consistently good, and at times excellent, level. But Battlestar is some of the best writing on TV, ever. Pure genius - and I think a lot of it is that it doesn't dumb down to the audience, and is written at comprehension level far higher than the majority of TV and movies - maybe, say, a 12th grade level, instead of America's standard 4-7th grade level.

[LynzM]

1. Hrm....

Haven't watched enough BG to compare, honestly, but you're right. TNG, they sure did love to talk. Especially Troi... I grew up on TNG, so it's hard for me to look at it objectively.

Given the comment about not dumbing it down for its viewers, though, I may have to look at catching up on some BG...

[Frank Cannon]

2. And a lot of that exposition was a lot of technobabble claptrap

The Enterprise would invariably be saved by some "pos-neg ion reverser flux chamber effect from the repolarization of the warp nacelles" or some other such bullshit, which Geordi LaForge was all too happy to tell us about, and at nauseating length.

I haven't heard any of that kind of crap on BSG. Even the classic "Adama maneuver" (where the BSG FTl'ed into the atmosphere, dropped like a flaming meteor launching Vipers, then FTL'ed out prior to impact) was never explained, though it made perfect sense in retrospect.

[Westegg]

7. Lissen, dude: Geordi was a genius. However...

... that visor? Soooo '80s.

[Ravenseye]

13. And when they did have problems in the engine room

The solution involved turning various wheels and levers like an old school engine. No long bs from the engineer. Just screaming and doing their jobs, and pulling things. No glowing power chips, or fixing a problem by rearanging the dominoes really fast.

[Deja Q]

3. Technobabble + preachiness mostly

There are some gems that redefine the genre, but time has taken its toll for many more - I grew up on TNG and even noticed back then how suckie seasons 5 and 6 were... they're worse now. :(

I'm also one of the few who prefers Pulaski (the first McCoy ripoff) to Crusher. Though I liked what Q did to Crusher in "True Q"... :evilgrin:

[spillthebeans]

4. I haven't seen one episode

I've only seen some classic episodes




but imdb says 9.6
http://imdb.com/title/tt0407362/

[baldguy]

5. Kate Mulgrew described Trek-speak as "almost Shakespearian in it's density."

[Orsino]

6. Good point. At its best, TNG kept the expo to a minimum.

Just got to watch my all-time fave last week: "Yesterday's Enterprise." With no fanfare at all, the episode dups you into an alternate reality. There's still a bit of backstory hastily sketched concerning the war, and as with most Trek the consequences are beaten into our heads, but under the hood it's a nice, self-contained show that manages to bring back the abysmal Denise Crosby without sucking...much.

"Sins of the Father" also just reran on G4. They invented a long-lost brother for Worf, and despite a lot of talkiness about their relationship, the episode is a wonderful, testosterone-laden picture of the Klingons. Though the ending is nearly a deus ex, I really liked the minimum of explanatory nonsense about discommendation. Instead, we see the reactions to the idea, and the quick scene of the ritual conveys its essence nicely.

[InvisibleTouch]

8. In the first season, maybe.

After that, the show really hit its stride. Or I just didn't notice it as much after that.

[Orrex]

9. BG is also 20 years later

First off, let me state outright my view that the first two seasons of ST:TNG are almost unwatchable, with the exception of one or two episodes.

Anyway, BG comes two decades after ST:TNG, so one should expect a corresponding degree of refinement to have occurred in the interim. Also, BG airs on a channel explicitly dedicated to science fiction, whereas ST:TNG had to break into general syndication when there was little evidence that a sci-fi program would succeed on tv. BG also enjoys the benefit of a fan base that was eager to see its return, while ST:TNG was pooh-poohed by old school Trekkies even before it aired.

Still, I think that you hit it right on the head re: dumbed-down writing, but that's true of every genre. Arrested Development, for example, was invariably billed as a "smart" comedy, and predictably it suffered mightily for it despite the very high quality of the show.

[Writer]

10. Star Trek: TNG and Battlestar Gallactica are cut from different cloths...

The former is a bubblegum sci-fi syndicated program, with a very small budget and only a handful of semi-decent actors. The writing was primarily Roddenberry's heavily genre-limited science fiction style.

The latter is a human story that happens to be set in space, with a very large budget and a large ensemble cast of remarkable actors. The writing is completely removed from the science fiction genre.

I can't even begin to draw a comparison, because I think they are from two completely different television universes (figuratively, not literally.)

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. But the different cloths don't matter in terms of HOW to tell a story

Battlestar just tells the story through the on-screen action and avery minimum of needless exposition.

Star Trek: TNG liked to bog the story down, and cause constant halting in the storytelling, so the characters could go on at length explaining stuff that didn't need to be explained.

I only brought up BG, not because it's also sci-fi like Star Trek, but because of all the TV shows I've seen, it was BG's almost complete lack of exposition that makes me notice now, when watching old ST shows (and other shows) just how much exposition there is.

This is not me trying to make some sophomoric comparison of "which Sci-fi TV show is better, ST or BG?!?!?!"

It's only through coincidence (and the fact that I watch a lot of sci-fi) that it was another sci-fi show (BG) that made me realize the amount of needless and empty and dumbed-down exposition that so much of TV exhibits, even some of the more excellent shows, like ST.

[Writer]

16. What you may also be noticing is the difference between "series" and "serial."

The difference dramatically impacts how a story gets told.

Star Trek, for the most part, functioned as a series, where each episode's story stood on its own. Battlestar, on the other hand, tells an ongoing story that continues after the end of each episode - a "serial" drama. That's why Battlestar opens with "previously on 'Battlestar Gallactica'." So you won't see as much exposition in each of the episodes, because it's a continuation of a plot line that has been developing since the SciFi miniseries that started the entire show.

But really... I do think Star Trek: TNG and Battlestar are on two different planes of production quality and narrative. Battlestar Gallactica, in my opinion, is the best drama on television at the moment.

[Zavulon]

11. I found TNG's expo to be intolerable.

Pulaski was the worst, Troi was almost as bad, and Crusher was right up there, too. Geordi was a different kind of intolerable, but intolerable nonetheless.

My problem with BG is that I can't bring myself to give a shit about any of the characters or the crew as a whole. If Starbuck gets killed, fine, whatever (and I can repeat that for the entire cast). If Adama or his son bite it, that's cool with me. If the Cylons managed to vaporize the crew in the next episode, that's fine with me.

BG had better writing, but I don't find anyone particularly likeable and see everyone as expendable. TNG, on the other hand, had Data, Ryker and Picard.

[tigereye]

12. I dunno

I don't think the comparison is a fair one. They have totally different styles.

BG is so cold and hard, and influenced by the quick edit, rough video style of film-making. I think TNG and many other Trek spin-offs are much more erudite and thoughtful. I prefer that.

We just started to rewatch some Babylon Fives, that seems to be a nice blend of styles. Also, I think the different shows are heavily influenced by the decades in which they were made.

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. One can be thoughtful but do so without all the unneccesary exposition

It bogs the story down, because it has to keep stopping to explain things that, ultimately, really don't need to be explained because the following scene is going to show what they were talking about anyway - or, in many cases, COULD have been written to just show it, without all the unneeded words.

[tigereye]

17. I guess it depends on whether the audience are auditory or

visual learners! ;)

I love the lecturing aspect of it. Oh well.

[The Count]

18. After the passionate, idealistic original Trek, TNG was pompous and

self righteous. Older, more set in his ways Roddenberry, saw the 24 century Federation as holier than though and thus broke the rule of good sci-fi - keep your characters vulnerable and realistic as your real object is still the present.
Battlestar is fresh and relevant - and very likely will be so for a long long time.
I'll agree with the poster who said he's not emotionally engaged by the characters. Comparing this with another good sci-fi - Farscape - it never kept me on the edge of my seat. But it gave me a lot to think and I appreciate that.

[Lautremont]

19. But I like explosions.

[Kutjara]

20. The problem with much of the expositional dialog...

...is that the characters are supposedly explaining things to eachother, when they're actually explaining things to us. This often leads to unintentionally hilarious moments, like when two of Starfleet's top engineers are giving eachother a primer in what a warp drive is. That's like one of us turning to a friend and suddenly explaining what a car does.

I always expected, after some rambling piece of technobabble monologue from Geordi or Wesley or B'Elanna or O'Brian, the unwilling recipient to look them in the eye and say, "I fucking know! I'm a fully qualified engineer with a PhD in warp field dynamics and 20 years experience building and maintaining propulsion systems in ships of all sizes and configurations. Do you really think I don't know what a fucking EPS conduit is? Do you think I came down with the last shower of rain? Did you mistake me for fucking Neelix or someone? Now, if you're finished wanking your ego all over my console, will you kindly fuck off and let me do my job? Sir."

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. Yay! Someone who understands exposition! That's precisely it -

they explain shit to each other that they don't need to, solely for the sake of the viewer (reader) - but really, for the sake of the writers because exposition is the lazy ass way to write. It's the easy way out of letting the reader/viewer know what something is, and really isn't suited for any kind of writing intended for anyone older than about second grade.

Battlestar does it so gloriously by simply introducing a concept that is new to the viewer, but clearly old hat to the characters, and letting it stand as it is with no one explaining it because, realistically, there'd be no reason for them to (as in your aforementioned Ph.D. expositing to a fellopw Ph.D. that a warp coil helps generate warp speed which is how the warp drive works, taking the starship at warp speeds around the galaxy because they have warp coils) -- and then later, showing through action or other scenario, to the viewer what that concept was/is.

That is a WAY more elegant way to write and tell a story, and actually makes the viewer far more part of the storytelling than Trek's endless expositional dialogue.

[SOteric]

21. Your partner in world domination, DS1,

is similarly enchanted with Battlestar Galactica. I really think sometimes the two of you were separated at birth.


Except of course, for his willingness to eat British cuisine and enjoy it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. He is a man of good character.

But, as to the other point, British cuisine puts me into a killing frenzy - and let's face it, "killing frenzy" and "enjoy" are practically synonyms.