RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,147
Posts: 5,343,552
Members: 24,591
Currently online: 454
Newest member: Ryq

TrekToday headlines

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

Giacchino Tour Arrives In North America
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

IDW Publishing October Star Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16

Cho As Romantic Lead
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16


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 February 23 2013, 04:34 AM   #31
CoveTom
Rear Admiral
 
Location: CoveTom
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?
Yes. Next question? :-)

Not much more I can say here that hasn't been said. Rightly or wrongly, the moviemaking gods didn't feel that TNG's small screen formula could work on the big screen. Thus, they gutted everything that made TNG such a beloved show and put a standard sci-fi action flick in its place.

There's nothing wrong with a good sci-fi action flick. As a one-time effort, First Contact was fine. TNG did its occasional action episode too. But the problem was thinking that those were the only kinds of stories they could successfully tell on the big screen.
CoveTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 02:25 PM   #32
Trek Survivor
Captain
 
Location: UK
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

No, I don't think it was a bad decision. I find things to enjoy about all 4 of the TNG movies; sure there are things that could've been improved with hindsight - and "Insurrection" is my least favourite - but I think, as a fan, I would've been far more peeved in they'd said "that's all folks" back in '94.
__________________
Want an awesome read? Check out "Showdown: A Darker Evil Rising" on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-Darke...er+evil+rising
Trek Survivor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 04:04 PM   #33
heavy lids
Lieutenant Commander
 
heavy lids's Avatar
 
Location: Denver
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Trek Survivor wrote: View Post
I think, as a fan, I would've been far more peeved in they'd said "that's all folks" back in '94.
I agree. I really like Generations and First Contact. Insurrection is fine and Nemesis is barely tolerable. Of course, they could have been better but it's better than nothing. At least they never got Michael Bay to make Trek movies....
__________________
"Divine intervention is...unlikely" - The Doctor
heavy lids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 04:08 PM   #34
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Infern0 wrote: View Post
The "feel" of the TNG movies was too different from the TV shows

I don't like it when things are different.
Mr. Plinkett TNG film reviews FTW! (Except Generations, which rocks!)


I quite like Generations. First Contact is a terrific movie, but ultimately does more harm to the canon (the unnecessary Borg Queen, Borg being able to time travel with ease) than good. I like the Riker-Troi marriage. And I don't think any of the movies dishonor All Good Things, as Picard seems chummier with the crew than on the show.

That said, as the other thread has noted, the Dominion War was pretty much a No-Win Scenario for the TNG movies: ignoring it is awkward, working with it would be really tough and awkward.

In hindsight, the crew should have split up. Maybe the post-Generations sequel should have been about Captain Riker moving to a new ship, or doing a war-related mission with Data and LaForge, with Picard putting in a M-like cameo, since the Enterprise is considered too valuable to wartime morale to endanger. Post-war, I'd also have liked to see a solo Picard movie, either retiring from being a captain or taking an extended sabbatical, and grappling with what sort of personal life awaits him without a family. I really liked the spark between him and Commander Donatra. If they'd met in peacetime, would he have pursued her instead of Bev?


"Open ROWR frequencies."

Also, it'd have been nice to see something of the UFP besides the cramped and cheap sets of Starfleet vessels. The TOS movies enlarged our view of the society; the TNG movies narrowed it.

Last edited by Gaith; February 28 2013 at 04:20 PM.
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 08:02 PM   #35
Peach Wookiee
Cuddly Mod of Doom
 
Peach Wookiee's Avatar
 
Location: Peach Wookiee
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

I think if Generations hadn't been rushed, we'd have gotten something much better.
Peach Wookiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 09:15 PM   #36
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Peach Wookiee wrote: View Post
I think if Generations hadn't been rushed, we'd have gotten something much better.
I blame Paramount entirely for how rushed Generations was.

Patrick Stewart was overworked directing the second to last episode of the series, being in pretty much every single scene of AGT, and was only given a week off being having to be in Generations.

The studio should have given a cast a year off instead of working them like dogs.
__________________
=)
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 10:26 PM   #37
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Gaith wrote: View Post
[... snip ...]
Dear Lord, Meyer is beautiful.

And that's really all I took away from your post.
__________________
Is this where we come in?
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 28 2013, 11:44 PM   #38
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

^ Then read it again, dang it! I worked at it!

Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 02:03 AM   #39
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

I admit I really like the Picard on sabbatical idea. I just don't see how you'd ever get something like that past the suits.

I also agree that the TNG movies felt really claustrophobic. It's always been my biggest complaint about them. As I said up thread, they feel like a bunch of grown men playing astronauts and aliens with their toys. They were never epic or grandiose like the TOS films.
__________________
Is this where we come in?
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 02:12 AM   #40
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

I also really HATED how Data handled in the movies. In Generations they turned him into an annoying idiot with the emotion chip, horny guy in First Contact, turned back into someone who needs to be taught how to be a boy in Insurrection.

Data was much better written in all the alternate future scenes in "All Good Things" with him much more human like but still staying an android.
__________________
=)
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 02:16 AM   #41
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

I would almost agree, but "Yes! That is it! I hate this. It is revolting!" still makes me laugh out loud.
__________________
Is this where we come in?
CorporalClegg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 04:40 AM   #42
Peach Wookiee
Cuddly Mod of Doom
 
Peach Wookiee's Avatar
 
Location: Peach Wookiee
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

^It was appropriate to his emotion chip at the time. And then there was "YES!" And of course what everyone on the bridge was thinking as they were heading toward the planet... "OH SHIT!" He was the only one who could logically say it at the time.
Peach Wookiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 08:23 AM   #43
Gov Kodos
Vice Admiral
 
Gov Kodos's Avatar
 
Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Lance wrote: View Post
Now, I should start by pointing out that I know from a business perspective it certainly wasn't a bad idea. The buzz around Star Trek in 1994 was huge, and the franchise was (arguably) at it's pop culture zenith. From a dollars and cents point-of-view, shifting the TNG cast to the big screen was a no brainer.

However, with the benefit of hindsight... I suppose as long as they were profitable (the bottom line) then there was no harm in it. By most accounts Generations, First Contact and Insurrection were all achievers. Nemesis didn't do so well at the box office (so by most measures that one was a failure), but has probably long since broke even on DVD and rebroadcast deals.

But is it really? Certainly, it took the TOS crew coming back (albeit with different actors in the roles) to revitalise the franchise as a movie series after Nemesis nearly killed it stone dead. One can't help but wonder if the movies should always have been about Kirk, Spock, and the rest. Harve Bennett famously had a plan inthe early 1990s to circumvent the aging original cast while still keeping the classic original characters on the big screen, but the time just wasn't right for such beloved characters and institutions to be recast in such a way. We wouldn't blink an eye-lid at it now, of course, but the potential uproar in fandom at the idea back then was enough to scare Paramount executives away from Bennett's plan.

From the viewpoint of a fan of TNG, we've also got the factor of the TNG series ending on the perfect note, and the four films effectively undoing the good will that All Good Things... was built on. If TNG had ended with that episode and then disappeared into reruns, I think it'd be more fondly remembered than it is by the general public. We as fans still give it the thumbsup, but there's a perception, rightly or wrongly, that a string of moderate films followed by one that bombed horribly at the box office effectively (and retrospectively) taints TNG forevermore. After those movies, TNG didn't have nearly as much integrity as it did on tv.

There's another factor, too. Between 1987 and 1991, there were two Star Trek production teams. The Movie Guys (Bennett, Ralph Winter, et al) who supervised movies based around the 23rd century and the original series characters; and The TV Guys (Berman, Piller, et al) who were focused on TNG Trek within the realm of television. Now, it had been proven that Star Trek could co-exist with itself this way, with one team working on movies and another on tv. But in 1994 with the elevation of the TNG cast to the big screen, the two dovetailed. Rick Berman was now chief of 'the Star Trek brand' in general, both movies and on television. One man can not supervised three television productions plus a series of bi-annual movies without spreading himself a little thin, and I think this is exactly what happened. Berman was over-stretched, and the overall quality of Star Trek took a dip as a result. Certainly I am of the belief that one of the reasons the 2009 movie was so strong was because all energies were focused towards it. There is no television Trek to suckle away from interest in the movies. It's like the early 1980s all over again, when TOS was hugely profitable on movie screens because it was alone and the only ticket in town for fans of Star Trek.

I'm in two minds. I love TNG, I love that cast. I just don't think they were adaptable for the big screen. TNG was cut from a different cloth to TOS, and in order to tell TNG movies they had to essentially sacrifice a great deal of what made tv TNG so unique within and of itself.
I don't think the move to movies was wrong, but the films always felt too much like the TV show. The movies' structure continued the TV show's desire to give the whole cast stories in the running time of the film rather than keep focused on the main story.

While the cast had a different feel to many in the films to their TV show selves, the TOS films were just as different from the TV characterizations in many ways. For me the TNG films were too concerned with diverging from the TV show in look, pacing and characterization. Abrahms Trek did the right thing, I'd say, by not worrying about going off the path with the Trek Look and embraced making a whole new version of the franchise.

Finally, the movies may not have been serviced by having the TV shows ongoing with looks and stories so similar to the films. It furthered the sense that these movies were no more than overlong TV episodes.
__________________
We are quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound... our home has no boundaries beyond which we cannot pass. We live in music, in a flash of color... we live on the wind and in the sparkle of a star! Endora, Bewitched
Gov Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 04:47 PM   #44
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
I admit I really like the Picard on sabbatical idea. I just don't see how you'd ever get something like that past the suits.
Yeah, it would've taken something miraculous, like Spielberg offering to direct such a movie only, and Stewart standing by him. Or Stewart offering to do it as a TV movie for cheap. Would've probably hurt the feelings of the rest of the cast, too. "We all not good enough for you? Shouldn't this sort of story be a novel?"

There's no reason for Uhura and Chekhov to still be on the Enterprise during the late TOS movies. At a certain point, the actor-character dynamic overshadows in-continuity logic.
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2013, 10:08 PM   #45
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Dream wrote: View Post
Peach Wookiee wrote: View Post
I think if Generations hadn't been rushed, we'd have gotten something much better.
I blame Paramount entirely for how rushed Generations was.

Patrick Stewart was overworked directing the second to last episode of the series, being in pretty much every single scene of AGT, and was only given a week off being having to be in Generations.

The studio should have given a cast a year off instead of working them like dogs.
Paramount's movie division was thinking that it had been three years since the last Trek movie, and that TNG was a very hot property at the time.

Hindsight is always 20-20 as the old saying goes, but Paramount's mindset in 1994 probably was to strike while the iron was hot rather than to let TNG cool off.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 08:37 AM.

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