View Single Post
Old November 9 2011, 01:03 AM   #119
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
you keep asserting that Picard and Data were critical to the success of TNG based on nothing but repeating that assertion.
Based on the fact that Stewart's and Spiner's fan mail quota was enormous in comparison to the other characters.

Remember that after "BOBW, part I" there was a possibility of Stewart leaving the show.
Yep, precisely why the feisty new character of Shelby was on hand to change the balance, if needed.

And Elizabeth Dennehy.

And I'd argue that Worf was just as important to TNG as Data
Although the actor started off as a bit player, only signed as a regular during the filming of "Farpoint". Worf didn't even get an entry in the first edition of the TNG Writers' Bible. IIRC, Dorn's salary started off lower than the others, which also made him more affordable when switching series.

TNG was an ensemble show. TOS wasn't. You take away Kirk, Spock, or McCoy you've got issues. You take away Picard or Data you move on.
I'm not denying TNG was an ensemble show, but history has proven that Stewart, Spiner, their agents and Paramount agreed that those two characters transcended the intended ensemble. Paramount was not prepared to proceed with "Generations" without Stewart or Spiner.

well OK, so the fan mail thing shows they were the stars. I'm not denying that, I just don't think either of them was indispensable to TNG. Paramount thought so , but there's no real way to prove a counter-factual.

I think that TNG was popular enough at the start of the movies that it could have absorbed the loss of one of the two. Not both obviously, but that would be a lot to expect of just about any show or movie to lose two stars at once and go on successfully.

Of course, Generations would have needed to be a very different film.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote