RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,742
Posts: 5,215,690
Members: 24,212
Currently online: 833
Newest member: pusykattdoll

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 23 2011, 03:57 PM   #31
inflatabledalek
Captain
 
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

In addition to the various other things mentioned, I think the TOS films handled the ageing thing much better than the TNG ones did. The fact they're getting older is acknowledged, they don't just stay in the same job for two decades (the short in fiction gap between four and five is the only time the status quo is really maintained, the rest of the time there's a sense they're off living their lives and all doing different things on and off with not everyone staying on the Enterprise all the time).

There's also a general sensible lack of physical action, and what we do get is either played for laughs (Kirk vs. Kirk or the rock climbing) or has the character at a disadvantage (Kirk only beats Kurge because the planet is exploding around them, and Sybok uses him like a rag doll). About the only serious physical feat in all six films is Kirk and McCoy's march across the ice in VI, and that really hurts McCoy.

In comparison, the TNG films don't change, evolve or age the characters at all. Even with Data's emotion chip, the one big change, that winds up being seen as such a failure it's forgotten by the final film. They just sit in the same chairs doing the same jobs for 15 years with little sign of anything going on in their lives beyond that (Worf's tenure on DS9 was not only down to outside constraints but had no impact on those two films after his introductory scenes, he might as well have been on the Enterprise all along,. strange they never thought of giving him a subplot where he has to work with the Enterprise's security chief).

And as they get older you need more and more suspension of disbelieve over the increasingly over the top action scenes. Everyone in Nemesis is younger than the cast of TUC, but Picard and Riker especially look much more worn out and tired than any of Kirk's crew do because we're supposed to try and buy them as being capable of killing an entire bridge crew of Remans alone or beating the shit out of Ron Pearlman. it just looks... silly. In a movie that's trying to be very serious.

One thing I've always found interesting is how FC really does feel the most cinematic of the TNG movies (though I'd agree with the above that the others aren't that TV like despite their other flaws), but the story is most like that of a TV episode with it's clearly defined and mostly seperate A and B plots. But then, that's a film where objectively I can point at all sorts of things in it and go "That's crap" (Hello Borg Queen) but when watching it I manage to get completely caught up in it and enjoy in immensity despite the logic flaws. Which I suppose, is what a good big dumb action film will do.
__________________
TRANSFORMATION:GALVATRON Vs. SEASPRAY. 'NUFF SAID
It's a case of back from the future in my look at: Fallen Angel! Part 1
inflatabledalek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 04:21 PM   #32
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

It always appeared to me like the entire cast just phoned it in in Nemesis. They weren't fit, they looked fat. And tired. And worn out. And lazy. Stewart sounded like he had a cold.

Compared to First Contact where they seemed at the height of their fitness and performance. Frakes seemed to be at his thinnest in First Contact, Dorn at his strongest. The perfomances were alround enjoyable, the chemistry was wonderful.

Insurrection was a bit "lazier", but still about the same level.

But Nemesis... seriously, something went entirely wrong there. There was a 4 year gap between the movies, but on screen it seems to me like 10 years.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 04:22 PM   #33
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

Star Trek was about the idea that there were no bad guys or aliens but others with different reasons for what they have to do. Think Balance of Terror. No better, no worse. Kirk points out that the Gorn might have had a good reason to destroy Cestus Three, and the climax to me was when he decided not to kill him, today! That shows a radical departure in his thought processes and ability to learn and change and regognize that one sees things as others see you - the reverse side has a reverse side which may be more powerful, who knows. Popular opinion could be wrong and the single metron child noted that complimenting Kirk for not being a good soldier drone of the state.
The music of the TOS movies were better, or shall I dare say just different and more to my personal taste. They weren't afraid of risk taking as Berman was terrified of. I'm sure when he gets older he is going to save string too.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 04:29 PM   #34
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

With so much money and power at stake he had to be a sure footer from day one. He was a studio stooge after all and like $1000 dollar suits alot. Yet was in control of everything from day one as well, very quitely and oh yes, subtly.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 05:09 PM   #35
OverJoyJackson
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Altanta Georgia, avoiding zombies daily
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
It always appeared to me like the entire cast just phoned it in in Nemesis. They weren't fit, they looked fat. And tired. And worn out. And lazy. Stewart sounded like he had a cold.

Compared to First Contact where they seemed at the height of their fitness and performance. Frakes seemed to be at his thinnest in First Contact, Dorn at his strongest. The perfomances were alround enjoyable, the chemistry was wonderful.

Insurrection was a bit "lazier", but still about the same level.

But Nemesis... seriously, something went entirely wrong there. There was a 4 year gap between the movies, but on screen it seems to me like 10 years.
What got to me was all the closeups. I think when I saw Leonard Maltin review it he said the same. And usually when a movie uses lots of closeups or zoom ins, its because of a lack $$$ for sets. I think Nemesis is worse than the Final Frontier, which is saying alot.
OverJoyJackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 05:36 PM   #36
ClayinCA
Commodore
 
ClayinCA's Avatar
 
Location: New New Jersey
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

spooky spice wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
Dr. Crusher..... Dr. Crusher... er, um...


Hit a guy with a pot...?
Oh, come on, she did way more than that. In one movie, she complained about an EMH, and in another, Data threw her into the water.

sonak wrote: View Post
I've never seen this "TNG movies feel like overlong episodes" criticism from professional critics, so I suspect it's a Trek fandom meme.
It's a little more than that--the Washington Post said that "Structurally, [Generations] is an episode of the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation," and the New York Times called Insurrection "little more than a glorified television episode." The San Francisco Chronicle says that Nemesis "might have made for a novelty episode of the TV series." That's just a superficial search, so I suspect there are a lot more references like that out there.
ClayinCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 06:13 PM   #37
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

And she noticed that her boobs have firmed up.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 06:26 PM   #38
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

That's character enough development for me.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 06:37 PM   #39
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

ClayinCA wrote: View Post
spooky spice wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
Dr. Crusher..... Dr. Crusher... er, um...


Hit a guy with a pot...?
Oh, come on, she did way more than that. In one movie, she complained about an EMH, and in another, Data threw her into the water.

sonak wrote: View Post
I've never seen this "TNG movies feel like overlong episodes" criticism from professional critics, so I suspect it's a Trek fandom meme.
It's a little more than that--the Washington Post said that "Structurally, [Generations] is an episode of the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation," and the New York Times called Insurrection "little more than a glorified television episode." The San Francisco Chronicle says that Nemesis "might have made for a novelty episode of the TV series." That's just a superficial search, so I suspect there are a lot more references like that out there.

OK, looking back over some of the reviews, I do see it here and there, so it is out there. But I still didn't see it as a common theme from a quick survey of my own, just mentioned in a few reviews.

However, it's not really explained what it means. I know nothing about film technique, so is it a reference to that? It doesn't make sense as a reference to story or special effects that I can tell.

I mean, TMP, which literally DOES have a TOS episode plot for its premise, is one of the few Trek films that almost never gets the "TV episode feel to it" criticism, so that particular knock strikes me as arbitrary, a way of saying you didn't like it without really explaining why.


(If you said, "Generations is a mess, plot-wise and thematically," OK, that's a criticism. But saying "it feels like an overlong episode?" What does that mean? Not to mention I can't see how anything even REMOTELY similar to GEN could be pulled off as a two-part TV episode)
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 07:08 PM   #40
BriGuy
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

RyuRoots wrote: View Post
They're not. TOS has 6 movies, and two good ones (TVH and TUC)

TNG has 4 movies and two good ones (GEN and FC)

TNG has a BETTER ratio, if anything. And frankly, nothing in INS or NEM touches the cartoonishly forced plot events of TWOK or the juvenile idiocy of TFF (although Insurrection tries, on that second one).
I know everyone has their opinion, but this is just ridiculous.

Khan is considered the greatest Trek movie, and solid as a movie in general, and may in the long-run even find itself with the title over the 2009 movie.

TVH was hugely successful. And yes, TUC was also good.

As for TNG movies, only FC was a hit. Gen had only the notoriety of being the first, and for being a cross-over movie of TOS and TNG, which was at the same time it's claim to fame and it's undoing.

As was said, TOS had a bigger leap to make from TV to movie, so its advancement was more noticeable. TNG was higher quality on TV, and it ran longer on TV, and with the exception of FC, it had a hard time leaving its roots.

Though, I credit a big part of the success of TOS movies to Khan and "Space Seed." The trilogy - Wrath, Search and Voyage are really the highlights and highpoints of the TOS movie franchise. Search may be the weakest, but as the mid-point of the trilogy, at least we had a continuing narrative.

Once the story thread that started with Khan was gone, TOS movies really became rudderless, it seems, as exhibited so strongly by TFF.
BriGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 07:23 PM   #41
inflatabledalek
Captain
 
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

sonak wrote: View Post
I mean, TMP, which literally DOES have a TOS episode plot for its premise, is one of the few Trek films that almost never gets the "TV episode feel to it" criticism, so that particular knock strikes me as arbitrary, a way of saying you didn't like it without really explaining why.
I don't think I've ever seen a review (well, at least not one written by someone familiar with the series, be it the SF press or fans) that doesn't point out it's got virtually the same plot as The Changeling. Isn't "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" one of the derogatory fan nicknames for it? Though TMP does have in its corner to counteract that some really top notch state of the then art effects to add a cinimatic gloss to it that stops it even slightly feeling like an episode of TOS. It's still as dull as dishwater though, so avoiding the small screen feeling doesn't help so much there.

As for more mainstream critics not making great play of the TNG films feeling like TV episodes, that's likely down to them generally being a lot less familiar with what the shows like the fans are. If they were being harsh they'd sum up the events of Insurrection as inconsequential compared to the other films rather than "Like a filler episode of the show".
__________________
TRANSFORMATION:GALVATRON Vs. SEASPRAY. 'NUFF SAID
It's a case of back from the future in my look at: Fallen Angel! Part 1
inflatabledalek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 07:56 PM   #42
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

inflatabledalek wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
I mean, TMP, which literally DOES have a TOS episode plot for its premise, is one of the few Trek films that almost never gets the "TV episode feel to it" criticism, so that particular knock strikes me as arbitrary, a way of saying you didn't like it without really explaining why.
I don't think I've ever seen a review (well, at least not one written by someone familiar with the series, be it the SF press or fans) that doesn't point out it's got virtually the same plot as The Changeling. Isn't "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" one of the derogatory fan nicknames for it? Though TMP does have in its corner to counteract that some really top notch state of the then art effects to add a cinimatic gloss to it that stops it even slightly feeling like an episode of TOS. It's still as dull as dishwater though, so avoiding the small screen feeling doesn't help so much there.

As for more mainstream critics not making great play of the TNG films feeling like TV episodes, that's likely down to them generally being a lot less familiar with what the shows like the fans are. If they were being harsh they'd sum up the events of Insurrection as inconsequential compared to the other films rather than "Like a filler episode of the show".

yes, it's common knowledge that the plot is similar to "the changeling," but my point was that's not used as a means to say that TMP is just like an overlong episode of TOS. When TMP is praised, it's often praised for being very cinematic, which just strikes me as funny, because it's obviously a TV episode plot stretched to two hours through special effects and filler.


And I agree about "Insurrection," it's probably the one Trek movie where it's hard to argue with the criticism that it doesn't feel like a movie, because you really COULD see it as a two-part episode from TNG's sixth or seventh season.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 08:07 PM   #43
BriGuy
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

sonak wrote: View Post
inflatabledalek wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
I mean, TMP, which literally DOES have a TOS episode plot for its premise, is one of the few Trek films that almost never gets the "TV episode feel to it" criticism, so that particular knock strikes me as arbitrary, a way of saying you didn't like it without really explaining why.
I don't think I've ever seen a review (well, at least not one written by someone familiar with the series, be it the SF press or fans) that doesn't point out it's got virtually the same plot as The Changeling. Isn't "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" one of the derogatory fan nicknames for it? Though TMP does have in its corner to counteract that some really top notch state of the then art effects to add a cinimatic gloss to it that stops it even slightly feeling like an episode of TOS. It's still as dull as dishwater though, so avoiding the small screen feeling doesn't help so much there.

As for more mainstream critics not making great play of the TNG films feeling like TV episodes, that's likely down to them generally being a lot less familiar with what the shows like the fans are. If they were being harsh they'd sum up the events of Insurrection as inconsequential compared to the other films rather than "Like a filler episode of the show".

yes, it's common knowledge that the plot is similar to "the changeling," but my point was that's not used as a means to say that TMP is just like an overlong episode of TOS. When TMP is praised, it's often praised for being very cinematic, which just strikes me as funny, because it's obviously a TV episode plot stretched to two hours through special effects and filler.


And I agree about "Insurrection," it's probably the one Trek movie where it's hard to argue with the criticism that it doesn't feel like a movie, because you really COULD see it as a two-part episode from TNG's sixth or seventh season.
Curious... if you split Insurrection into two parts, where would the cliff-hang be?

Remember the halves need to be about equal length. Don't recall off the top of my head what's happening at the mid-point of the movie's time.
BriGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 08:11 PM   #44
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

BriGuy wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
inflatabledalek wrote: View Post

I don't think I've ever seen a review (well, at least not one written by someone familiar with the series, be it the SF press or fans) that doesn't point out it's got virtually the same plot as The Changeling. Isn't "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" one of the derogatory fan nicknames for it? Though TMP does have in its corner to counteract that some really top notch state of the then art effects to add a cinimatic gloss to it that stops it even slightly feeling like an episode of TOS. It's still as dull as dishwater though, so avoiding the small screen feeling doesn't help so much there.

As for more mainstream critics not making great play of the TNG films feeling like TV episodes, that's likely down to them generally being a lot less familiar with what the shows like the fans are. If they were being harsh they'd sum up the events of Insurrection as inconsequential compared to the other films rather than "Like a filler episode of the show".

yes, it's common knowledge that the plot is similar to "the changeling," but my point was that's not used as a means to say that TMP is just like an overlong episode of TOS. When TMP is praised, it's often praised for being very cinematic, which just strikes me as funny, because it's obviously a TV episode plot stretched to two hours through special effects and filler.


And I agree about "Insurrection," it's probably the one Trek movie where it's hard to argue with the criticism that it doesn't feel like a movie, because you really COULD see it as a two-part episode from TNG's sixth or seventh season.
Curious... if you split Insurrection into two parts, where would the cliff-hang be?

Remember the halves need to be about equal length. Don't recall off the top of my head what's happening at the mid-point of the movie's time.

I would think the first part would be the "mystery" part, culminating with the discovery of the holoship and Picard's confrontation with Dougherty. Or maybe with Picard removing his rank insignia? The second part would be the action part with moving the Baku and stuff.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2011, 08:24 PM   #45
Galileo7
Fleet Captain
 
Galileo7's Avatar
 
Location: U.S.A.
Re: Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

I know that some did not like the Travel Pod flyover of the 1701-refit Enterprise in drydock by Scotty and Kirk scene in TMP (an abridged version scene was used again in TWOK), I loved it along with the rest of the audience that I sat with on Friday December 7th 1979. This gets me to my point, at the end of NEMESIS we get a glimpse of the Sovereign class 1701-E in drydock being repaired, albeit it was not enough screen time. I think the scene would have been much better if it had LaForge, Picard and B4 in a Travel Pod flyover of the 1701-E while Picard talks to B4...IMHO.
Galileo7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
movies, tng, tos

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.