Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

[Therin of Andor]

xortex wrote:

---

Oh but I forgot, girls (the controllers of the known universe) don't like to think. They like to feel.

Enough already.

[Peach Wookiee]

xortex wrote:

---

They still serve popcorn at movies, not lobster. But I think high concept stories is what Trek is all about. Trek 09 is a Nemisis version of Khan. Oh but I forgot, girls (the controllers of the known universe) don't like to think. They like to feel.

Xortex, you have earned an infraction for trolling. I am a girl and I like to think and feel.

[CoveTom]

Star Trek has always, without exception -- let me say it again: always -- worked better as a television series than as a feature film franchise. Even "good" or "successful" entries in the franchise, such as TWOK and ST09, pale in comparison to what Trek was able to accomplish on television. The format simply suits Trek much better.

As for the movies feeling like glorified TV episodes, you have to remember that, first, Trek's roots in both TOS and TNG are in television, so there's going to be that natural tendency to do things in a more TV-like manner. Second, also keep in mind that the Trek films were largely produced and even directed by people with a TV background.

Look just at the list of producers of the films: Gene Roddenberry, Harve Bennett, and Rick Berman. All of whom made their careers primarily in television. The lone exception to this is TUC, which did not have a producer from a TV background. And when you look at other categories -- writers, directors, production designers, etc. -- yes, you have some who come from the world of feature films, but you have quite a few who come from the world of television.

Is it any wonder that Trek films come out feeling more like TV episodes?

[Anwar]

The TOS movies were used to revive what had been a canceled franchise, and they expanded on what little we had seen in the TV series. Plus, TOS only had 3 central characters so it was easy to keep that for the movies.

Also, the TOS movies were where these character finally started to show growth as characters that they never got to do in the TV series.

The TNG movies, however, couldn't handle the ensemble cast so well and TNG had pretty much run its course by then anyways. There was little purpose to the TNG movies to begin with (and Paramount made them on the cheap, too).

Frankly, the best ideas for TNG movies had already been done as TV episodes: Yesterday's Enterprise, Best of Both Worlds, heck even Descent.

[CorporalCaptain]

Very good ideas, Anwar. However, I'm going to argue that in its conception at least, First Contact was a good idea, at least on par with the best of TNG TV, but you're right about the three other TNG films for sure.

[CoveTom]

I know it's a sentiment that many others disagree with, but I think that First Contact was excellent in conception until the point at which the studio insisted that there needed to be a single, identifiable "bad guy" in the film. If that was the case, they should have abandoned the Borg story entirely, as that was not what the Borg were, and gone in a different direction. Introducing the Borg Queen ruined the concept of the story.

[Anwar]

That's what I mean when I say they could've made "Descent" the Borg movie. In that story, it made sense for the Borg to have a Leader; in this case Lore which gives a triple connection to the cast (Borg/Picard, Hugh/Geordi, Data/Lore) rather than making some new enemy for the movie.

Plus, a better budget and more time would allow for Geordi and Hugh to actually meet again and hammer out some other kinks in the story (Crusher commanding the ship wasn't bad, but it could've been set up better than Picard just handing her the chair).

Again, the problem was that TNG had too perfect a wrap-up in "All Good Things...". They had to make up new stuff for the movies while TOS could bring back old foes not finished off like Khan, or the Klingons (who were still enemies when TOS ended).

Personally, even TOS could've done better with some things: It would've added to TUC if the Klingon General was Kor instead of new guy Chang.

[EliyahuQeoni]

The Overlord wrote:

---

So why are TOS films better then the TNG films?

Because TOS is better than TNG (It seemed like the obvious answer to me )

[Anwar]

It's more because TOS' formula was easier to translate to screen, and there was more to work with.

Sad fact is, TNG really didn't need movies.

[Rocketeer]

[QUOTE=Donny;5241938]

Herbert wrote:

---

I believe that much of the success of the TOS movies is due to the participation of Nicholas Meyer.

I couldn't agree more.

... edited for space

QUOTE]


I think you got it. I agree with TWOK and TUC but I enjoy The Voyage Home as much as, just on a different level. TVH is a movie I can watch with my wife and daughter and we all have a good time.

[RAMA]

I think its a misconception. I rank STNG: Two good movies, two mediocre or bad. 50% success. TOS: 3 Good, 3 mediocre or bad. 50%.

I enjoyed the movies in general, I always felt there was something missing...ST09 had it in spades. It FELT like a movie and was also a good adventure.

RAMA

[Herkimer Jitty]

It's only misconception if you assume Trekkies and filmgoers alike are a hive mind. We are not.

People have different opinions and different tastes. There's no stone tablets that say "and lo, the Great Bird looked upon the Trekkies and said 'thy shall view 5 awesome movies and 5 crap movies, and one which be-eth contended'. And it was good".

Didn't happen. Some people think Final Frontier rocked, some people think Wrath of Khan was a pile of dogshit.

More power to 'em.

[Therin of Andor]

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

---

It's only misconception if you assume Trekkies and filmgoers alike are a hive mind. We are not.

Not to mention that some of us really enjoyed ST:TMP, ST III and ST XI, supposedly part of the set of cursed "odd numbered" movies.

[Eric Cheung]

sonak wrote:

---

I've never seen this "TNG movies feel like overlong episodes" criticism from professional critics, so I suspect it's a Trek fandom meme.

I believe Siskel and Ebert specifically refer to Insurrection that way, but I'm not positive and I can't look it up right now.

Saito S wrote:

---

Huh. I've often heard the term "high-concept" used to mean "more intellectually challenging/more complex", at least when used in the context of sci-fi. Dunno where I got it, really, so it could very well be way off-base.

High concept is a term used to refer to the process in pitch meetings of distilling a film's concept to as few words as possible. I actually learned this from an old Fall Preview issue of TV Guide which used the term in its entries for each new show. Often shows are described as "x meets y" or "Die Hard on a..." It actually means the opposite of how you've heard it used, especially when you consider its sometimes negative connotation (the Wikipedia article cites "Snakes on a Plane" or "Cowboys & Aliens"). "Hard Sci-Fi," or "cerebral," would be better terms.

[RAMA]

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

---

It's only misconception if you assume Trekkies and filmgoers alike are a hive mind. We are not.

People have different opinions and different tastes. There's no stone tablets that say "and lo, the Great Bird looked upon the Trekkies and said 'thy shall view 5 awesome movies and 5 crap movies, and one which be-eth contended'. And it was good".

Didn't happen. Some people think Final Frontier rocked, some people think Wrath of Khan was a pile of dogshit.

More power to 'em.

I think most trekkies think they were fairly balanced as series go, its only the knee-jerk high bluster, higher profile media/blog/internet news that needs quick blurbs where this gets repeated.