Why didn't Q appear in any of the TNG films?

[Therin of Andor]

BriGuy wrote:

---

The issues probably would not have been insurmountable; to presume they would've been so therefore that's why it wasn't worth attempting is just wrong.

The OP asked "Why didn't Q appear in any of the TNG films?" and I gave The Overlord (and you) an answer, pulled together from numerous comments at numerous conventions.

You can think Paramount was "wrong" all you like, but Hollywood bean-counters don't think the same way as you.

It is extremely rare for a major motion picture script to be commissioned that will depend on one particular guest actor agreeing to take the part. The regular players of TNG had contracts with clauses to cover possible future projects. No guest actor is likely to sign up before a script is even written, and the studio is highly unlikely to greenlight such a project without a signature on a contract.

I never saw All Good Things as the perfect finale others have and apparently do.

de Lancie disagrees with you.

[xortex]

Yea, you forget that there was a been counter in a brass suite in control of every creative decision that Star Trek made for eighteen years. It's always someone named Rick.

[Therin of Andor]

^Every one of Rick's decisions had to get past Sherry Lansing:

"As studio chief, she focused on bottom-line cost rather than market share, preferring to take fewer risks and make lower-budget films than other studios. Viacom (which purchased Paramount in 1994) decided to split the company into two parts in 2004 and Lansing stepped down at the end of that year after an almost unprecedented twelve-year tenure..." (Wikipedia).

[Dukhat]

Ghrakh wrote:

---

I don't think it's necessary that he would have to be the villain to be in a TNG film. In fact, there are many TNG episodes that don't have a villain at all.

Why must a movie have a villain?

For all kinds of reasons. But the main one is that if your movie has a hero, having a villain to foil usually goes hand-in-hand.

[Python Trek]

Christopher wrote:

---

Besides, Q might've been a difficult character for mainstream audiences to take seriously. "Okay, so there's this goofy magic guy who pops in and snaps his fingers and makes anything happen? What is this, the Great Gazoo? I thought this was a space movie, not I Dream of Jeannie!"

Given that we had movies about heaven, time-traveling zombies, the fountain of youth, and a pair (a pair!! I still can't believe it!!) of evil twins, I don't think having Mr Mxyzyptlk in a TNG film would've been a deal-breaker.

[xortex]

So Sherry Lansing's philosophy was less for the people, more for her. Which is why the split took place in the first place. Well, now to quote J J Abrams, it's fractured on three axis now.

[JarodRussell]

Dukhat wrote:

---

For all kinds of reasons. But the main one is that if your movie has a hero, having a villain to foil usually goes hand-in-hand.

Explain The Voyage Home! And The Motion Picture!

[JarodRussell]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

But the whole point of doing a Q story would be to feature John de Lancie.

That's like saying the whole point of doing a Kirk & Spock story is to feature Shatner and Nimoy.

[Christopher]

Python Trek wrote:

---

Given that we had movies about heaven, time-traveling zombies, the fountain of youth, and a pair (a pair!! I still can't believe it!!) of evil twins, I don't think having Mr Mxyzyptlk in a TNG film would've been a deal-breaker.

Good grief, you're right -- not that Q should've been in a movie, but that he essentially is Mr. Mxyzptlk in every major respect. Wow, as if I didn't already think he was a silly enough concept...

[Therin of Andor]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

That's like saying the whole point of doing a Kirk & Spock story is to feature Shatner and Nimoy.

No, because they usually were already under contracts with clauses to enable negotiations for each sequel. Note that, when ST:TMP was being written, there was no Spock in it because Nimoy had indicated he would not sign for "In Thy Image", and therefore Xon was created.

The OP asked why no Q in a TNG film. Sure, Paramount could have ordered a TNG film with a role for Q that would be played by a different actor to de Lancie if he turned it down. I am assuming that the OP is asking for a Q film because he/she likes de Lancie's performance.

This is just going round and round in circles.

Mind you, there's certainly no shortage off ST 2009 detractors who continue to say that "the whole point of doing a Kirk & Spock story is to feature Shatner and Nimoy".

Christopher wrote:

---

Good grief, you're right -- not that Q should've been in a movie, but that he essentially is Mr. Mxyzptlk in every major respect.

And you can make Q disappear by tricking him into saying his name backwards.

[22 Stars]

Ian, while I apprecitate your Trexpertise, I think the notion that DeLancie would have 'held up' the producers for a king's ransom is really silly. I worked at Paramount during the ENTIRE Sherry Lansing run and yes, we made the the cheapest possible films during that time. But negotiations for things like this are not always bloodthursty and base.

If they approaced DeLancie to be in a feature, they would have been generous to a point and within reason, and if DeLancie's agent hadn't agreed, they would have recast and rewritten and he would have lost a featured part in a 'major' motion picture. It happens a lot when actors pull out of films.

Kirstie and her agent talked herself out of a featured role in a subsequent Trek film and they just recast. Leonard agreed to die in II and then agreed to come back with the stipulation he direct III.

I just think your theories of absolute certitude regarding these things is unrealistic.

[Therin of Andor]

22 Stars wrote:

---

I just think your theories of absolute certitude regarding these things is unrealistic.

Sigh. "Absolute certitude". That must be the "hidden agenda" I'm always accused of. What's the point of anyone asking questions like "Why didn't Q appear in any of the TNG films?" if the only answer can be "We don't know"?

Of course I'm speculating. We all are. We aren't Sherry Lansing or Rick Berman and we can't know what went on in their heads unless they give an honest answer in an interview. Please note the statement in my sig under every post I make: "(Entire post is personal opinion)". Not sufficient, apparently.

Why are my posts interpreted as "absolute certitude", but everyone else can speculate wildly? Especially when my posts on these types of issues are often distilled from conversations I've had with actors and production people. Is it really essential that we preface every statement made on this board with "perhaps..." or "maybe..."?

Certainly, the several times I heard John de Lancie speak, he said that he had absolutely no expectation that he would be required for a TNG movie. (Probably because he knew that in-house motion pictures aren't written on spec the way that TV episodes are pitched and written.) He was surprised and pleased that they kept inviting him back for TV episodes. Sure, they could have written a Q movie without knowing if John de Lancie would do it, or was available/interested. And he probably would have done it. And his agent probably wouldn't have held Paramount to ransom. But they didn't. So he didn't. And the agent didn't. So what's the point of people asking these questions and us wasting our time throwing up arguments and counter arguments?

[22 Stars]

Ok, no worries, I just had to point out that if Berman, Stewart or Spiner really wanted DeLancie in a film they would have had him in a film.

I think it's clear by the direction that the TNG films took, that they were interested more in satisfying PS and BS. Q was very 'inside TNG' and could have been thought that he would ostracized the general movie public. The Borg were too, granted, but I think were more easily understood by a potential movie going audience and were less subtle and nuanced as Q being a 'funny/silly bad-guy', too much grey area to explore for these writers and producers in a two hour film.

[BriGuy]

It just seems to me you're assuming DeLancie would have turned it down or demanded too much, and that's why a movie with Q couldn't be done and wasn't done.

If Khan worked and the Borg worked, Q could've worked, I think. Q was prominently featured throughout TNG's run, from start to finish. He was high profile and, I think, known. And it wouldn't take long to "explain" him to anyone in the audience who didn't know him.

As for Q being too "magical" or "fantastical," heck, movies of all sort are chock-full of such characters, and not just sci-fi.

[22 Stars]

BriGuy wrote:

---

It just seems to me you're assuming DeLancie would have turned it down or demanded too much, and that's why a movie with Q couldn't be done and wasn't done.

Yeah, exactly.

I guess to sum it up, my best answer to the OP would be 'because they (the producers) didn't want him'.