TOS/TNG writer demographic shift

[Uraniun235]

In TOS, we had some episodes written by respected science-fiction authors.

In TNG, we saw a slide from science fiction into godawful soap-opera-ish crap. Oh no, Wesley's being a bitch. Oh no, Worf's having a hard time being a single parent. Oh no, Troi is really frustrated at Riker because the bridge qualification test is so hard! Dreck written by people who thought that a good way to show "strong women" was to have the ship's counselor and CMO take command at various points!

Why and how did this happen? Did the execs really think it was going to sell better?

[Patrick Degan]

The TOS writers grew up in a hard, practical world. They were World War II veterans or came of age during the Depression. In that kind of life-school, you tend to receive a remarkably bullshit-free education.

[Dennis Toy]

In TNG, we saw a slide from science fiction into godawful soap-opera-ish crap. Oh no, Wesley's being a bitch. Oh no, Worf's having a hard time being a single parent. Oh no, Troi is really frustrated at Riker because the bridge qualification test is so hard! Dreck written by people who thought that a good way to show "strong women" was to have the ship's counselor and CMO take command at various points!

We did have some science-fiction stories in TNG, we had the borg, the tamaerians, the cardassians, time-travel plots, thje ferengi. Some of the TOS writers were writing for TNG also. the Soap opera elements only took up small part of the series. The slide began in the seventh season when Brannon Braga and Jeri Taylor took over writing for the series. Also remember this was supposed to be a peaceful time reflecting the era TNG was made in.

[Tommy J]

In TOS, we had some episodes written by respected science-fiction authors.

In TNG, we saw a slide from science fiction into godawful soap-opera-ish crap. Oh no, Wesley's being a bitch. Oh no, Worf's having a hard time being a single parent. Oh no, Troi is really frustrated at Riker because the bridge qualification test is so hard! Dreck written by people who thought that a good way to show "strong women" was to have the ship's counselor and CMO take command at various points!

Why and how did this happen? Did the execs really think it was going to sell better?

Two simple words: Political Correctness begin to take over the sensabilities of Hollywood writers. Unforunately Trek took it to an extreme.

[Petrosjko]

Also, the WWII and post-WWII science fiction writing crowd had a greater number of scientists and engineers among their number, as did the fan base. As a consequence, there was a lot more Wong-ian style criticism of stories that held them to a higher standard. As science fiction became more mainstream, more airhead creative writing types got into it, and a lot of them tend to drift into neo-Luddism and other tripe.

[Tommy J]

Also, the WWII and post-WWII science fiction writing crowd had a greater number of scientists and engineers among their number, as did the fan base. As a consequence, there was a lot more Wong-ian style criticism of stories that held them to a higher standard. As science fiction became more mainstream, more airhead creative writing types got into it, and a lot of them tend to drift into neo-Luddism and other tripe.

You really think that the post WWII folks were the critical people? I see heavy criticism of poor Sci-Fi science to be a newer phenomen. Even shows like the original Battle Star Galactica escaped the science cricitism of its age.

Albert Einstein probably got a migraine with the bad science fiction of the 1950's.

I look at poor writing and heavy criticism resulting from the children of the early 70's and 80's coupled with a medium like the internet in which to at length people can share criticism.

[Petrosjko]

You really think that the post WWII folks were the critical people? I see heavy criticism of poor Sci-Fi science to be a newer phenomen. Even shows like the original Battle Star Galactica escaped the science cricitism of its age.

Albert Einstein probably got a migraine with the bad science fiction of the 1950's.

I look at poor writing and heavy criticism resulting from the children of the early 70's and 80's coupled with a medium like the internet in which to at length people can share criticism.

Actually, I'm referring to the science fiction digests, primarily. IIRC Larry Niven's first short story involved some incorrect assumptions about Mercury that were disproven when the first probes arrived to study the planet. Being as how the disproval of his notions came after the story was written, one would think that he would be absolved of blame. Nevertheless, he wrote to the editor of the digest and asked if a written apology/correction was needed for the story.

Now as to science fiction television, that's a different business altogether. For the most part, because science fiction was not considered a field that translated to television very well, science fiction fans were generally willing to take whatever was offered in that area. Written material came under much harsher scrutiny.

TOS was something of an anomaly precisely because it did have a number of episodes written by notable writers of the day.

[Drooling Iguana]

Also, the WWII and post-WWII science fiction writing crowd had a greater number of scientists and engineers among their number, as did the fan base. As a consequence, there was a lot more Wong-ian style criticism of stories that held them to a higher standard. As science fiction became more mainstream, more airhead creative writing types got into it, and a lot of them tend to drift into neo-Luddism and other tripe.

You really think that the post WWII folks were the critical people? I see heavy criticism of poor Sci-Fi science to be a newer phenomen. Even shows like the original Battle Star Galactica escaped the science cricitism of its age.

I think that has more to do with the fact that BSG never tried to pass itself off as anything other than an excuse to show some cool, Star-Wars-on-the-cheap space dogfights on TV. Or, at least, the original didn't.

[Patrick Degan]

Also, the WWII and post-WWII science fiction writing crowd had a greater number of scientists and engineers among their number, as did the fan base. As a consequence, there was a lot more Wong-ian style criticism of stories that held them to a higher standard. As science fiction became more mainstream, more airhead creative writing types got into it, and a lot of them tend to drift into neo-Luddism and other tripe.

You really think that the post WWII folks were the critical people? I see heavy criticism of poor Sci-Fi science to be a newer phenomen. Even shows like the original Battlestar Galactica escaped the science cricitism of its age.

You've obviously never read Harlan Ellison. No scientist, but he had a fairly good idea what didn't make sense for a SF scenario. Of course, the artistic failures of the series were more than sufficient grounds for him to toss rocks at "Glen Larceny" and BSG. While David Gerrold summed up BSG's vision thusly: "they're after us, let's run like Hell!" The critics both in and out of the SF genre were nearly universal in either laughing or hounding BSG off the stage.

I think that has more to do with the fact that BSG never tried to pass itself off as anything other than an excuse to show some cool, Star-Wars-on-the-cheap space dogfights on TV. Or, at least, the original didn't.

BSG was cashing in on the whole Ancient Astronauts craze which was quite popular in the 70s —as were other pleasant slices of fringe lunacy like the Devil's Triangle, UFOs, and the Theory of Atlantis.

[Darth Wong]

BSG was written by a bunch of Mormons. What do you expect?

Sci-fi was quite a bit different back when you could find Omni Magazine on a grocery-store magazine rack.

[Stravo]

Sci-fi was quite a bit different back when you could find Omni Magazine on a grocery-store magazine rack.

I remember reading some great hard sci fi short fiction in Omni as well as some fantastic artwork. In particular I remember an artwork spread on Dune - this was way before the Lynch film so it was very original not influenced by the films. There was also a good short fiction on a scientist examining the shroud of Turin and disovering that Jesus was suffering from Leukemia so his death was a mercy inflicted on him by god. It's a damned shame you don't see magazines like that anymore.

[Darth Wong]

What's worse is that it's hard to undo the damage. Young aspiring writers who have been fed a steady diet of "subspace field coil", "find the resonant frequency" from the engine room and "we fight with honour, we die with honour" from the soldiers in sci-fi can't help but incorporate that bullshit into their stories now.

[Styphon]

Now as to science fiction television, that's a different business altogether. For the most part, because science fiction was not considered a field that translated to television very well, science fiction fans were generally willing to take whatever was offered in that area. Written material came under much harsher scrutiny.

case in point, the popularity of Time Tunnel...

[Patrick Degan]

What's worse is that it's hard to undo the damage. Young aspiring writers who have been fed a steady diet of "subspace field coil", "find the resonant frequency" from the engine room and "we fight with honour, we die with honour" from the soldiers in sci-fi can't help but incorporate that bullshit into their stories now.

About as bad as handing any aspiring artist a copy of How To Draw Comics The Marvel Way. Sure way to kill the development of an individual style.