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

[xortex]

'Jaws' to me is a person.

[Therin of Andor]

xortex wrote:

---

'Jaws' to me is a person.

Yeah, in the James Bond movies.

[Dukhat]

xortex wrote:

---

'Jaws' to me is a person.

Then let me set you straight: Jaws is most definitely not a person.

By that logic, the dikironium cloud creature from TOS's "Obsession" was a person too.

[Herbert]

I guess that they could have scratched out Q in the script and replaced it with Trelane. I presume that they could have gotten William Campbell to reprise Trelane if John DeLancie wasn't available. ;-)

[Maurice]

While villain can be used to describe a person or thing (the villain in the mass extinction was the asteroid), I think in common usage villain is used to refer to a person. One could argue that the shark in Jaws is the problem that needs to be solved, whereas the antagonist/villain is the mayor who refuses to close the beaches.

[JarodRussell]

Dukhat wrote:

---

Then let me set you straight: Jaws is most definitely not a person.

By that logic, the dikironium cloud creature from TOS's "Obsession" was a person too.

[xortex]

Maybe alive is a better way to rephrase it and not just a circumstance.

[Broccoli]

Christopher wrote:

---

^But the only thing that makes Q work is John DeLancie.

True, but I guess I need to clarify. What I mean to suggest in my earlier post was writing a draft that didn't have Q in it and another that did. Depending on how Q was used and whether or not he could be altered to a different character if needed.

We all know scripts go through several drafts and changes before they get to the filming stage. I'm sure if they wanted to use Q, they would try to sign the actor as early as possible. If DeLancie decided not to do it, they could easily do a rewrite to alter it without Q. Obviously I'm talking in general terms.

For example, look at the early drafts of Insurrection when compared to the final product. Very similar in theme and general outline, but very different in the details.

However, in the end, this is all speculative. The likely truth is that TPTB didn't want to make a movie with Q. If they did, I am sure they would have found a way to make it happen.

By itself, it's a silly, cartoony idea.

Q is no more silly or cartoony than any of the other stuff in Star Trek.

[xortex]

Yea, they could have kept writing him in and out until his price came down to nothing. I had a girfriend do that to me last year.

[Therin of Andor]

Broccoli wrote:

---

they could easily do a rewrite to alter it without Q.

Bang goes the budget.

[JarodRussell]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Bang goes the budget.

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

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?

Well, I guess you should see above and realize why.

[Christopher]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Bang goes the budget.

I don't know why you'd think that. Scripts get rewritten constantly and to excess in the feature film business. Script drafts are considered as disposable as tissue paper.

[BriGuy]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

No, I gave that as one example. I was discussing that movies aren't usually made that way in Hollywood. The possibility of the one actor who can play the main guest role turning down the script - for any reason: illness, other film work, fatigue, stage commitments - opens up the studio to unnecessary financial risk and delay. Add to that that Paramount's ST movies were often quite frugal compared to other blockbusters of the times.

Then how do you explain when a project gets initiated specifically with one actor in mind? That is done and has been done. Roles in certain TV shows and movies are written with an actor in mind - entire TV shows and movies are birthed to be "vehicles" for a particular actor. Sometimes they don't get them and abandon or go to someone else, but things are created with one person in mind.

[BriGuy]

Herbert wrote:

---

It does make it very difficult to place the characters and/or the U.S.S. Enterprise in jeopardy in the story when a character who is omnipotent is included in the story.

Q has lost his powers, and restrained or refused from using his powers. He also has "superiors."

And what if there's something out there stronger than he? What if the continuum faced a threat?

If I was in a meeting where a Q movie was being discussed, I'd start at what Q said to Picard at the end of AGT - that his future lay not in cataloging planets and what not, but in exploring the "limitless possibilities of existence," and then he went to tell him something, but stopped... what was he going to tell Picard, but didn't?

[Christopher]

BriGuy wrote:

---

Q has lost his powers, and restrained or refused from using his powers. He also has "superiors."

Been done.

And what if there's something out there stronger than he? What if the continuum faced a threat?

A story where the primary threat is to a guest star rather than the leads? Might fly in the series, but not a movie.