View Single Post
Old October 13 2012, 04:03 AM   #63
Fleet Captain
mos6507's Avatar
Re: Did Insurrection kill the TNG franchise?

Utopianvista wrote: View Post
Destroying the Enterprise D was a mistake.
It was destroyed to make way for a more epic-looking model. I can understand the rationale of that, but the way it was destroyed was not very satisfying, not compared to, let's say, the death of the Enterprise in Search of Spock.

Utopianvista wrote: View Post
That ship WAS TNG. It was easily identifiable, beautiful and just was TNG.
The Enterprise-D never really won me over. The wide neck and the U-shaped warp pylons and the stubby rear-end without a true shuttle-bay door is just not iconic. It's just too manta-ray-like, too feminine, and too mid-80s.

It was, at best, adequate.

The Enterprise-E was more of a back-to-basics design. The plating was overdone on it, but the overall shape is pretty sexy.

TOS had a 7 year or so gap between the end of the 5-year-mission and TMP, and it is that time away that advanced the characters to a new phase which was then explored from TMP onward. The characters have to GROW. The TNG movies didn't have the same sense of characters growing into middle age. That is why the Borg PTSD storyline with Picard was played up, to give the character a new wrinkle, plus Data and the emotion-chip.

Movies are usually not "bottle" stories. Maybe James Bond movies, but that's about it. The protagonists have to somehow change. Kirk changes over time from one movie to the next. He's a stuffed shirt in TMP, and he learns to feel young again in Khan, and he learns the value of sacrifice for friendship in Search for Spock. Then they all have fun in Voyage Home, and Final Frontier tries to further explore late middle age (and fails) and then you have Kirk work out his prejudice against Klingons with VI. Also along the way you have Sulu eventually gaining command, Checkov moving to the Reliant and back, Spock dying and coming back to life, etc... However, I'm not sure how much most of the TNG characters change between the first TNG movie and the last. Even Picard seems to stay pretty much the same by Nemesis. Geordi gets bionic lenses but doesn't really change much as a character. I think that static nature of the characters hurt the films.

In comparison, All Good Things felt more like a movie because it was Q forcing us to review all that the crew had experienced from Farpoint onward. You got some sense that at least within the span of the series that things did change or something important was "proven" about the human condition.
Star Trek: Earhart
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote