RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,815
Posts: 5,472,579
Members: 25,037
Currently online: 534
Newest member: Sebastian380

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


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 March 5 2013, 04:46 PM   #61
Andymator
Lieutenant Commander
 
Andymator's Avatar
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Allyn Gibson wrote: View Post

They needed to use the 6-foot for Generations because of the saucer separation, even though it looked more unfinished than the 4-foot model. The 6-foot model had a smooth, unfinished surface, while the 4-foot model had a textured surface that depicted the detail the actual ship would have had.
But that only makes sense for the couple of scenes where the saucer actually separates.

The 6 foot model's smooth surface was not unfinished at all, it was the designer's intent. It's details were incredibly fine and intricate. What you're confusing is the more exaggerated features of the 4 foot model for more detail. On TV screens (in the 1990s) the 6 footer's details don't come across as nicely, so the over-the-top 4 footer translates much more clearly. When you make the move to feature film that's no longer the case.


Allyn Gibson wrote: View Post

The Excelsior was easier to work with because it was built to ILM's specifications. Even the Reliant model was easier for ILM to work with than the Enterprise model. The Enterprise model had two problems. It was too big for ILM's motion rig and didn't mate well to it. Plus, it had interior lighting that ILM found difficult to work with. ILM never expected to work with the refit Enterprise model again after Star Trek III; to their chagrin, they had to get it out of storage and clean it up for Star Trek IV.
Yes, this is common knowledge, but it has nothing to do with why the Excelsior model was built. The Excelsior model was built because the script for Star Trek III called for the ship to appear.
Andymator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2013, 10:32 PM   #62
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

There was some beat up from Gene Roddenberry at the time about how the movie producers 'clearly' wanted to replace the Constitution with the Excelsior, but I've always chalked this up as being paranoia on Gene's part. Certainly, Harve Bennett has gone on record as saying it was never his intention, and the subtext in STIII is self-evidently that the Excelsior is supposed to be seen as the brash, bold new Starfleet ship whose overpowering arrogance is toppled by good ol' underdog Enterprise. All the bluster about "The Great Experiment" is just setting up the punchline of it failing to even clear Starbase, and despite Gene's fears it wouldn't surprise me if Bennett always intended for 1701-A to turn up at the end of the next movie, even as he was writing the death of her predecessor.

The removal of 1701-D, on the other hand, always struck me as a cynical and unnecessary move, a decision made for purely commercial reasons. They wanted to capitalize on having a brand new ship in the next movie (merchandise etc), so 1701-D had to go. Personally, I'd have been perfectly happy to have simply seen it refitted with each new movie ala the TOS Enterprise, but there you go. The bottom line is that it's a dollars and cents business.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 05:39 AM   #63
Argus Skyhawk
Commodore
 
Argus Skyhawk's Avatar
 
Location: Argus Skyhawk
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Lance wrote: View Post
...one of the things which arguably sinks the TNG movies like a stone (floatational Data optional!) is that they're all stand-alones.
I don't think doing stand-alone movies was necessarily a problem, but I admit I would have really preferred to have seen the stories more interconnected like the TOS movies were. If it had been up to me, the ninth movie would have started with the Enterprise emerging in the 24th Century from the time warp they used to return home at the end of First Contact. That way, the movie would not only feel as though it followed directly from the previous one, but they would not have needed to contrive some other reason to bring back Worf. He was already there!

Would that have made Insurrection better? No, but I still would have liked it.

I probably would have extended Picard's relationship with Anij into the tenth film as well. It hate it when love interests disappear in a single episode.
__________________
I thought I had found everlasting joy and happiness, but when I clicked the link, it just took me to a Rick Astley video.
Argus Skyhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 10:55 AM   #64
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Lance wrote:
Harve Bennett has gone on record as saying it was never his intention, and the subtext in STIII is self- evidently that the Excelsior is supposed to be seen as the brash, bold new Starfleet ship whose overpowering arrogance is toppled by good ol' underdog Enterprise. All the bluster about "The Great Experiment" is just setting up the punchline of it failing to even clear Starbase, and despite Gene's fears it wouldn't surprise me if Bennett always intended for 1701-A to turn up at the end of the next movie, even as he was writing the death of her predecessor.
I thought Harve Bennett told DC comics that the plan was to give Kirk and crew the Excelsior, hence that being the case for their entire run of comics between STIII and IV.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 12:25 PM   #65
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

TWOK is really the first part of a trilogy. Taken as a whole, the TWOK/TSFS/TVH trilogy is bolder, grander, more dramatic, and ultimately more satisfying than most individual episodes of TOS. Looking at them that way, we see a symphony that overshadows the faults in each of the individual films.

Long story short there, the TOS films managed to transcend the limitations of TOS on TV. They took us places far beyond where we'd been before. They freakin' killed off one of the most popular characters in TV history, destroyed the Enterprise, and then brought it all back by the end of TVH.

Did the TNG films ever manage to do something similar? Nope, not even close. There is certainly no overarching story across even just any two of the four films. As individual films, they play like souped-up versions of TNG two-parters: The Best of Both Worlds, Data's Head, I mean Time's Arrow, Gambit, Unification, etc. In the case of GEN, since it's the torch-passer, arguably it gets to be a souped-up combo of two two-parters, say like Unification plus Redemption, with a dash of Relics, or something.

And before you say, "But TNG blew up their Enterprise, too," and "They killed off their popular character, too," well, you know that the reply's going to be, "Been there, done that," dontcha.

Long story short, where the TOS films went far beyond what their show did, like cranking it up from 4 to 11, the TNG films were only like cranking it up from 4 to 5, 6, or maybe all the way to 7 in spots.

Further, while the TOS films at least managed a sentimental finale at the end of TUC, the TNG films went out with a whimper at the end of NEM. Nothing really artistic going on in the TNG films by comparison. Nothing even worth fighting for after NEM. At least the TOS films had some fight left in 'em after TFF.

The TNG films play like an empty cash-grab, if you look at it that way, that just got played out.

When I go back to watch TNG, I'm always going back to the show, never to the films. In the case of TOS, I go back to both.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6 2013, 02:45 PM   #66
Trek Survivor
Captain
 
Location: UK
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Newspaper Taxi wrote: View Post
Maybe the polling and testing audiences weren't famillar with who Troi and Riker and LeVar Burton were, but if they wrote a decent enough script they could inspire people to care about them.
Nothing to do with the writers, or the moviegoers recognition of other characters, but EVERYTHING to do with Stewart and Spiner's power. They were the most popular characters from the series, and this gave them huge leverage in negotiating their individual contracts when it came to each movie. Both had clauses guaranteeing their characters "arcs" in every film, as well as script input/approval (the latter more for Stewart than Spiner).
__________________
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 March 6 2013, 03:45 PM   #67
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Not really the STNG movies made $455 million. 2 of the 4 were successful outright, 3 of 4 made back their money at the BO, and all 4 probably made a profit after including all sources after BO. FC is normally in people's top 4 ST movies list.

Having said that, STNG works better on TV. I would rather have seen 9 years of STNG on tv and 2 follow up movies in the theaters. That would have been ideal.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 03:05 AM   #68
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

If you had to kill Kirk and destroy the Enterprise in the same film, then you have him go down with the ship.

I never understood the logic of doing it any other way.

I find it funny that none of the TOS characters who appeared in TNG ever made it to the bridge of the Enterprise-D.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 03:08 AM   #69
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

BillJ wrote: View Post
If you had to kill Kirk and destroy the Enterprise in the same film, then you have him go down with the ship.

I never understood the logic of doing it any other way.
That would have been a distinct improvement, yes. Something that the TOS films didn't do. Kirk's final answer to the Kobayashi Maru, when you can no longer cheat death. Oh, if only.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 03:14 AM   #70
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Plus, I thought the six-foot Enterprise-D model looked damn spectacular on the big screen.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2013, 04:03 PM   #71
dub
Fleet Captain
 
dub's Avatar
 
Location: Location? What is this?
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
TWOK is really the first part of a trilogy. Taken as a whole, the TWOK/TSFS/TVH trilogy is bolder, grander, more dramatic, and ultimately more satisfying than most individual episodes of TOS. Looking at them that way, we see a symphony that overshadows the faults in each of the individual films.

Long story short there, the TOS films managed to transcend the limitations of TOS on TV. They took us places far beyond where we'd been before. They freakin' killed off one of the most popular characters in TV history, destroyed the Enterprise, and then brought it all back by the end of TVH.

Did the TNG films ever manage to do something similar? Nope, not even close.
Dude, you nailed it. I think another reason why TOS movies -- particularly the three you mentioned as a trilogy -- feel like a larger story (than TV) is because so much time had passed before they actually made a TOS movie. Effects improved, styles changed, and the passage of time also provided nostalgia for the audience. Lots of interesting thoughts in this thread.
dub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8 2013, 03:18 PM   #72
Trek Survivor
Captain
 
Location: UK
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

BillJ wrote: View Post
If you had to kill Kirk and destroy the Enterprise in the same film, then you have him go down with the ship.
Yes agreed, that could've substantially improved things.
__________________
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 March 8 2013, 03:58 PM   #73
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
TWOK is really the first part of a trilogy. Taken as a whole, the TWOK/TSFS/TVH trilogy is bolder, grander, more dramatic, and ultimately more satisfying than most individual episodes of TOS.
I uh, strongly disagree. The Voyage Home is OK I guess but it isn't a patch on episodes like The Tholian Web, The Cage, This Side of Paradise or Balance of Terror. I love Wrath of Khan but the following 2 movies are nothing special. I'd much rather watch The Motion Picture of Undiscovered Country, which resemble Star Trek a lot more.

It's a mess of a movie but I'm oddly fond of Insurrection. It tried to tell an actual science-fiction story unlike the following 2 knuckle-brained films.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8 2013, 05:35 PM   #74
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

DalekJim wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
TWOK is really the first part of a trilogy. Taken as a whole, the TWOK/TSFS/TVH trilogy is bolder, grander, more dramatic, and ultimately more satisfying than most individual episodes of TOS.
I uh, strongly disagree. The Voyage Home is OK I guess but it isn't a patch on episodes like The Tholian Web, The Cage, This Side of Paradise or Balance of Terror. I love Wrath of Khan but the following 2 movies are nothing special. I'd much rather watch The Motion Picture of Undiscovered Country, which resemble Star Trek a lot more.

It's a mess of a movie but I'm oddly fond of Insurrection. It tried to tell an actual science-fiction story unlike the following 2 knuckle-brained films.
That's, uh, why I was speaking of the trilogy as a whole. And I'm afraid you clipped out the rest of my context, where I mentioned what parts of the other two films especially contribute to the grand story arc and where I acknowledged how the other two after TWOK don't really stand by themselves.

---

On the subject of going down with the ship, at least Kirk's father got to do that in nuTrek.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8 2013, 09:17 PM   #75
Iamnotspock
Captain
 
Location: Bristol, England
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
That would have been a distinct improvement, yes. Something that the TOS films didn't do. Kirk's final answer to the Kobayashi Maru, when you can no longer cheat death. Oh, if only.
It's arguably what Generations did at the beginning....
Iamnotspock 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 04:32 PM.

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