Originally Posted by horatio
I think that the underlying factor which influences our different opinions concerning TNG and post TNG might be the attitude towards techspeak or hard vs. soft science fiction.
In general I am not much of a fan of hard sci-fi, something like Asimov's robot stories are fun to read and an interesting fictional exploration of design issues of artifical intelligence but the characters are so dry and it's all written in a fairly technical manner.
Soft science fiction which explores the human instead of the technological sphere is much more interesting in my opinion (I own not even one book about a natural scientific topic.). Q's lesson in All Good Things or Archer's speech in These are the Voyages visible in my signature emphasize that the exploration of the social space is as least as relevant as the exploration of the physical outer space and it is no coincidence that these points occur in two series finales.
But should Trek be super-soft, should it be indistinguishable from fantasy or ordinary fiction? I don't think so, a bit of techspeak belongs in there. In TOS there wasn't enough in my opinion, you could watch the whole series and get the impression that the nacelles are rockets. TNG got it right, VOY went too far and DS9 as well as ENT kept it roughly on a TNG level.
So if (and please correct me if I am wrong) you are like Ron Moore a proponent of super-soft sci-fi it is understandable that you dislike certain aspects of TNG and post TNG.
Naturally when I write super-long posts, I miss much of the conversation in the interim. So to keep it short:
I consider TNG
perhaps the best example of 'hard' sci-fi for television, even if it wasn't that hard. Seasons 1-5, I was at least tricked into the illusion that the technobabble actually meant something. I've said I like things different, I like individuality... and there was a time when TNG
looked, felt and sounded quite different from what came before.