Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

[Noname Given]

Simple:

The people who wrote and produced the TOS films were feature film makers and scriptwriters to begin with.

The people who produced teh TNG films were TV episode production people and scriptwriters - and it showed (in a VERY bad way.)

With HD TV (and 16:9 framing and higer picture resolution); the line today is getting blurred; but when the TNG films were made - the distictopn was very clear.

Nemesis suffered from two things - John Logan being an AWFUL scriptwriter (yes, he made his feature film name with 'Gladiator'; BUT the script work he did for that film was HEAVILY reworked and rewritten before it was filmed - his name stayed per WGA rules); and Nenesis shows what John Logan is capable of on his own (and Brent Spiner being 'in' on the script didn't help.)

but in't the difference between having an actual feature film crew VS a TV episode production crew - the mindsets are VERY different.

[ssosmcin]

Meh, I liked all 11 films. I judge them on an individual basis. Having said that, I prefer the first 6 because they were special. They brought back characters from a show and existed primarily because fans really wanted to see them. Each movie was a) an event and b) thought to be the last adventure. Because each one was thought to be the end (except TVH), there could be character development because there was no future continuity to consider.

When TUC was done, the publicized assumption was that "TOS films will end and when TNG finishes up, they'll slide into movies." No fan demand, no begging, letters, or anything. Just make movies 6 months after the 7 year old series finally petered out. Plus, nobody was saying "this movie is the last one." They were planning on making them over and over, so a certain status quo had to be maintained Also, finally, as it was said on this thread: there's was no "need" for them.

But, again, I like them all.

[barnaclelapse]

ssosmcin wrote:

---

Meh, I liked all 11 films. I judge them on an individual basis. Having said that, I prefer the first 6 because they were special. They brought back characters from a show and existed primarily because fans really wanted to see them. Each movie was a) an event and b) thought to be the last adventure. Because each one was thought to be the end (except TVH), there could be character development because there was no future continuity to consider.

When TUC was done, the publicized assumption was that "TOS films will end and when TNG finishes up, they'll slide into movies." No fan demand, no begging, letters, or anything. Just make movies 6 months after the 7 year old series finally petered out. Plus, nobody was saying "this movie is the last one." They were planning on making them over and over, so a certain status quo had to be maintained Also, finally, as it was said on this thread: there's was no "need" for them.

But, again, I like them all.

I think you nailed my own thoughts beautifully. I liked them all, too, but those first six were indeed quite special. They were a critical part of my childhood. The original cast films came out of a very strong desire from fans to see those characters return. The TNG seemed to be largely an act of what Paramount probably perceived to be just common sense, the next logical step in that particular franchise. Doesn't mean they weren't good. They were just built differently, and for different reasons.

[RAMA]

Noname Given wrote:

---

Simple:

The people who wrote and produced the TOS films were feature film makers and scriptwriters to begin with.

The people who produced teh TNG films were TV episode production people and scriptwriters - and it showed (in a VERY bad way.)

With HD TV (and 16:9 framing and higer picture resolution); the line today is getting blurred; but when the TNG films were made - the distictopn was very clear.

Nemesis suffered from two things - John Logan being an AWFUL scriptwriter (yes, he made his feature film name with 'Gladiator'; BUT the script work he did for that film was HEAVILY reworked and rewritten before it was filmed - his name stayed per WGA rules); and Nenesis shows what John Logan is capable of on his own (and Brent Spiner being 'in' on the script didn't help.)

but in't the difference between having an actual feature film crew VS a TV episode production crew - the mindsets are VERY different.

Wrong.

The producers/writers/directors were all mainly from TV. This was because the studio thought they could manage the budget better. Bennet was mainly involved with TV productions. Meyer directed exactly ONE film before STII and wrote 5, including the classic: "Invasion ofthe Bee Girls".

[22 Stars]

Yeah, it wasn't that the filmmakers were from TV vs features, it was just talent for bringing character driven story to the big screen. TWOK was about more than Khan, it was about Kirk getting older and losing Spock ultimately. This started the trilogy of films that were at their core the story of this family. Sure they had the guest bad guy in Kruge in III but it was the Search for Spock and then Spock finds himself in IV.

IMHO they should have made the TNG films about the characters, how they evolve and change, live and die. Not just put the characters in episodic films where one has little bearing on the next.

[Anwar]

It's also easier to write for the TOS characters, because there's only 3 central characters (and those 3 are Freudian archetypes) and until the movies none of them went through any real character development. The movies were able to give them development.

The TNG chars were a big ensemble, and it's a bit harder to do a story that focuses on all of them equally.

[CoveTom]

^ It wasn't really that the writers found it difficult to do an ensemble story with the TNG cast. It's that they never tried. The studio believed their big draws for a feature film were Picard and Data, and the rest were treated basically like window dressing. No attempt was made to give any significant roles to the other members of the cast.

FC came the closest because it had a significant B-story working in tandem with the main A-story. And since Picard and Data were both involved in the A-story, it fell to characters like Riker, Troi, and LaForge to carry the B-story. It was still heavily Picard/Data weighted, and Crusher got virtually nothing to do, but it was the best effort at using the ensemble out of the four TNG films.

The Picard/Data show attitude is just mind-boggling as it ignores just about everything that made TNG successful as a TV series, but it does follow the standard Hollywood pattern of thinking "hey, we've got this enormously successful product, so we've got to change it."

[The Dominion]

Can Rick Berman see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

[Therin of Andor]

CoveZombie wrote:

---

The Picard/Data show attitude is just mind-boggling as it ignores just about everything that made TNG successful

Not so mind-boggling at all.

The first thing Robert Wise did after being signed to direct "In Thy Image" as a feature film was to ask, "Where is Spock?"

They then pursued Nimoy and offered him more and more until he agreed to participate. That elevated Nimoy from being Shatner's lower-paid co-star to getting a "favored nations" contract (comparable to the leading actor's perks and pay) and a settlement of a nasty, long-term, character-likeness approval dispute.

Both Stewart and Spiner (and their agents) played hard to get with their TNG movie contracts. Paramount could have risked going ahead without their two most popular stars. Or not. The rest of the cast were just happy, more or less, to get more work.

[CoveTom]

^ Thing is though, even with Nimoy's shiny new contract and his considerably increased star power, they didn't undermine the basics of what made Spock who he is. Yes, he went through some character development and changed, but the core of his character was not thrown out the window. Part of that has to do with Nimoy's concern over the character's integrity, and I'm sure part of it has to do with the writers and producers doing a good job.

But with the TNG movies, Picard and Data bear little resemblance to the same characters from the series. With Data, there's a but of an excuse each time -- the emotion chip in Generations, the Borg modifications in First Contact, the phaser damage in Insurrection, etc. -- but with Picard, it's just out of left field. Suddenly, the statesman-like, intellectual, accomplished diplomat of TNG is now an action hero.

[sonak]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Not so mind-boggling at all.

The first thing Robert Wise did after being signed to direct "In Thy Image" as a feature film was to ask, "Where is Spock?"

They then pursued Nimoy and offered him more and more until he agreed to participate. That elevated Nimoy from being Shatner's lower-paid co-star to getting a "favored nations" contract (comparable to the leading actor's perks and pay) and a settlement of a nasty, long-term, character-likeness approval dispute.

Both Stewart and Spiner (and their agents) played hard to get with their TNG movie contracts. Paramount could have risked going ahead without their two most popular stars. Or not. The rest of the cast were just happy, more or less, to get more work.

yes but Spock was undeniably the star and break-out character of TOS, and TOS wasn't an ensemble.

You could get rid of just about any of the TNG characters and it would not be that big of a deal.

Get rid of Spock and you've got an obvious and gaping hole. Still workable but very changed.

[22 Stars]

^ Yeah, you have Phase II, and it would have changed Trek forever. ST II and III is the closest we got to losing Spock, and look all of III is about how important it is to HAVE Spock with the group.

[Therin of Andor]

sonak wrote:

---

You could get rid of just about any of the TNG characters and it would not be that big of a deal.

Patrick, Brent, their agents and Paramount disagree with you.

"Generations" without the participation of Picard and/or Data would not have been tenable. Those actors' fan mail piles outnumbered everyone else's.

More likely, we'd have probably gotten a series of telemovies instead: the Riker and Troi show. But Paramount wanted movies, not telemovies. (Similarly, there were actual plans for telemovies with Saavik and David, had Nimoy refused to return after ST II and had Shatner's movie career took off the way he envisaged at the time.)

[sonak]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Patrick, Brent, their agents and Paramount disagree with you.

"Generations" without the participation of Picard and/or Data would not have been tenable. Those actors' fan mail piles outnumbered everyone else's.

More likely, we'd have probably gotten a series of telemovies instead: the Riker and Troi show. But Paramount wanted movies, not telemovies. (Similarly, there were actual plans for telemovies with Saavik and David, had Nimoy refused to return after ST II and had Shatner's movie career took off the way he envisaged at the time.)

well of course "generations" wouldn't have been tenable because the plot is basically the Picard-Data show. The movie would've needed a complete re-write.


They were the stars, no doubt, but the show and the formula was not nearly as dependent on them as TOS was on Spock.

[Argus Skyhawk]

BriGuy wrote:

---

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'm not sure how close it is to the middle of the film, but I could imagine the "Too be continued..." moment coming shortly after Data's "Lock and Load" line. The film has just revealed that our characters are going insurrect, so we know conflict is acomin'. Yeah, that seems to me like the right point to hang the cliff.