RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,950
Posts: 5,390,844
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 573
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


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 May 13 2013, 01:02 AM   #166
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

When FC came out in 1996, it was da shiznit. Nothing cheap about it.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 08:29 PM   #167
Turd Ferguson
Commodore
 
Turd Ferguson's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Dream wrote: View Post
Jonesy wrote: View Post
Lee Enfield wrote: View Post
...ah, perhaps thats why the movie felt like a tv episode...
Trek tv writers also produced "First Contact", and while you can argue the merits of the film, it barely felt like a tv episode.
It screams big budget episode at times. In fact all of the Trek movies do, with the except of TMP and Abrams' movies.

Just compared FC to STXI or STXII.
One thing that REALLY stands out for me is in TNG it's always supposed to be the regulars getting the action scenes and making the startling revelations. I love in the battle of Deck 16, Data is breaking Borg necks, Picard is phasering them, and Worf is beating the shit out them, all the while there's countless extras just standing there, staring blankly off into the distance like they're watching a wrestling match. For God's sakes, fire a phaser or something!

Also, when Riker gives out the location of the Borg sphere's fire, the crewman is just sitting at his console like a mute, incompetent moron. At least the incompetent moron communications officer on the JJ-prise had lines.
__________________
"Divine intervention is unlikely." - The Doctor
Turd Ferguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 10:32 PM   #168
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

The extras on TNG were almost always hilariously oblivious to anything going on. The ship's about to be destroyed and the conn officer is just pressing buttons like everything's normal. Or if one of the regulars is knocked away from his station, an extra pops out of nowhere and calmly takes over. IIRC, in "All Good Things" an extra actually bumps into Picard, nearly knocking the captain over, and continues on his merry way as if nothing happened. (Although maybe I'm remembering that one wrong.)
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 03:44 AM   #169
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
TheSubCommander wrote: View Post
Generations could have been done better, but the basic premise was fine with me.
And that's the thing...at the time, it was probably fine with everyone. TOS was dead, TNG was the future. Let's represent that symbolically by killing Kirk. And while we're at it, we're all tired of looking at the Enterprise-D for seven years, right? So let's just destroy it in the most pitiful way possible so we can get a brand-spanking new ship for the next film!

But how has this attitude stood through the test of time? Well for me personally, it doesn't age well. Killing Kirk was silly (or at least the way they did it). Thinking that we were tired of the Ent-D was wrong; we had seven years invested in that lovingly-designed ship, just so it could be replaced by some soulless John Eaves product (John, I think you're a nice guy and all, but your designs all tend to look the same...)

First Contact was good, in fact great when I first saw it, it was awesome, but has some issues with aging in some parts of the movie, now.
Again, liked the film at first, but in retrospect, I don't like how they portrayed Cochrane, and don't like the whole concept of a Borg Queen. For insects, a queen is necessary to create more drones. For the Borg, drones are created by assimilating other species. So why have a queen?

Insurrection was more like a typical TNG episode, that the only thing horrible was the Pintafore singing crap.
Insurrection was the only Trek movie I never saw in the theaters. Take that for what it's worth.

Nemesis just was a failure on all fronts, especially introducing B4 out of thin air, without even referencing Lore at all. Tom Hardy was fine as Shinzon, but his motivations for revenge seemed misdirected. Neither Earth nor Picard did anything bad to him. It might have been better if instead of Earth, Picard was trying to keep Shinzon from destroying Romulus (of course with Star Trek 2009, it is moot, now).
Agreed on almost all points; however, I don't think Hardy was all that great. The character's motivations notwithstanding, his acting was just too over-the-top for me.
I agree with most everything with you said, save for just minor points.

Generations:
I agree, killing Kirk was not necessary to pass the torch. Personally, I was always of the opinion that rather than kill Kirk, that he somehow, in order to prevent the destruction of the planet, did "something heroic" (I leave that for an actual writer to figure out), that both prevents the destruction, as well as pulls him back into the Nexus, thus leaving his final fate open for interpretation. Ironically, the way he is pulled into the Nexus on the Enterprise-B, was the more fitting end for Kirk.

I also was sad to see the Enterprise D go, especially in such an ignominious way, but I understand if they wanted to introduce another ship for the movies. Besides, one criticism the E-D always had (I am not one, just saying that I heard the criticism) was that it was very un-Enterprise looking. THe Enterprise E returned to a more similar Constitution Class silhouette.

FC
I didn't mind the Borg Queen. I can see how that somewhat contradicts previous TNG Borg canon, and is sort of a retcon, I thought the portrayal was just fine.

Nemesis
Again, I didn't mind Shinzon per se. He was a little over the top, yes, but I chalk that up more to poor writing, than the actor. Not to mention, the total transparent reference to Excalibur the movie when Shinzon, while impaled, drags himself through further in an attempt to kill Picard totally took me out of the movie (in Excalibur, which Patric Stewart was in BTW, it was almost opposite roles but a similar scene, as Arthur was impaled on Mordred's lance, and drags himself across the lance to kill Mordred).
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 12:21 PM   #170
I am not Spock
Commodore
 
Location: Australia
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Shinzon dragging himself further along the girder he's impaled on reminded me of Lurtz doing the same thing in LOTR
__________________
It's a FAAAAKKKEEE!
Senator Vreenak- In the Pale Moonlight
I am not Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 11:37 PM   #171
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

My reason Shinzon didn't work for me as a character was that I just couldn't see him as Picard. At all.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16 2013, 08:13 PM   #172
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

It would have helped if we'd seen more (or indeed, any) scenes of him being a tactical thinker. Instead he was just a ranting villain with a bald head.

Mind you, there is some correlation between Hardy's over-acting and Patrick Stewart shouting "And I will make them PAYYYYYYEEEEE forwhattheyhaveDONE!!!!" in FC. So maybe Picard had it in him all along?
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17 2013, 09:02 AM   #173
pirates_dc
Ensign
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

I dont care what anybody says, nemesis was good. With that said, TNG is more of soap opera than an action series. And even tho i would be the first one in line at the opening day of tng movie..it shouldnt be there. Its like putting the day time soaps on the big screen, it just doesnt belong.
pirates_dc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 01:10 AM   #174
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

pirates_dc wrote: View Post
I dont care what anybody says, nemesis was good. With that said, TNG is more of soap opera than an action series. And even tho i would be the first one in line at the opening day of tng movie..it shouldnt be there. Its like putting the day time soaps on the big screen, it just doesnt belong.
They just needed a good story competently written. IMO, "Generations" had the most potential of all the movies, it was just badly written by two guys who didn't know what they were doing.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 01:45 PM   #175
Trek Survivor
Captain
 
Location: UK
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Dream wrote: View Post
Jonesy wrote: View Post
Lee Enfield wrote: View Post
...ah, perhaps thats why the movie felt like a tv episode...
Trek tv writers also produced "First Contact", and while you can argue the merits of the film, it barely felt like a tv episode.
It screams big budget episode at times. In fact all of the Trek movies do, with the except of TMP and Abrams' movies.

Just compared FC to STXI or STXII.
Do you know how much more budget and money Trek XI and XII had than the other films??

Anyway, rewatched "Insurrection" again over the weekend. Last year I made a thread called "Learning to Love Insurrection". Well, I loved it even more this time! In fact, I'm rather happy with all 4 TNG films (perhaps the only person around these parts!). Yes, there were elements that could be better etc, but I enjoy watching them.
__________________
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 May 20 2013, 04:41 PM   #176
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
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
Well, Insurrection was actually pretty close, IMO.

I don't like it when things are different.
I love it.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 04:47 PM   #177
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
But how has this attitude stood through the test of time? Well for me personally, it doesn't age well. Killing Kirk was silly (or at least the way they did it). Thinking that we were tired of the Ent-D was wrong; we had seven years invested in that lovingly-designed ship, just so it could be replaced by some soulless John Eaves product (John, I think you're a nice guy and all, but your designs all tend to look the same...)
I think Generations showed that 1701-D looked fabulous on the big screen. It's just a damn shame.

For what it's worth:

Generations was a fine idea but poorly executed, First Contact was a good sci-fi action movie but it didn't feel like Star Trek and it had plot holes the size of that temporal anomaly, Insurrection was fine by me, and Nemesis was, again, a fine idea but poorly executed. Tom Hardy has great in the role but I would've prefered if Stewart had played both Picard and Shinzon.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 04:57 PM   #178
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
pirates_dc wrote: View Post
I dont care what anybody says, nemesis was good. With that said, TNG is more of soap opera than an action series. And even tho i would be the first one in line at the opening day of tng movie..it shouldnt be there. Its like putting the day time soaps on the big screen, it just doesnt belong.
They just needed a good story competently written. IMO, "Generations" had the most potential of all the movies, it was just badly written by two guys who didn't know what they were doing.

yes, two guys who were long-time Star Trek show writers, and who also wrote the very successful "first contact." They sure didn't know what they were doing.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 05:08 PM   #179
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

pirates_dc wrote: View Post
TNG is more of soap opera than an action series. And even tho i would be the first one in line at the opening day of tng movie..it shouldnt be there. Its like putting the day time soaps on the big screen, it just doesnt belong.
I think there's a fundamental truth in this. Some things just can't be shoehorned into being something that is essentially against their nature. TNG was kinda long form. It was a tone poem, a fine wine, something that needed a certain degree of reflection to appreciate. TOS was much more immediate and visceral. It makes sense to me that TOS could fit the "popcorn movie" label like a glove, but TNG basically fails because the characters/format are not suited to it.

The TNG cast might have worked really well in The Motion Picture.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 01:42 AM   #180
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

sonak wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
pirates_dc wrote: View Post
I dont care what anybody says, nemesis was good. With that said, TNG is more of soap opera than an action series. And even tho i would be the first one in line at the opening day of tng movie..it shouldnt be there. Its like putting the day time soaps on the big screen, it just doesnt belong.
They just needed a good story competently written. IMO, "Generations" had the most potential of all the movies, it was just badly written by two guys who didn't know what they were doing.

yes, two guys who were long-time Star Trek show writers, and who also wrote the very successful "first contact." They sure didn't know what they were doing.
They either didn't know what they were doing, or they deliberately screwed up the payoff of the characters they set up. Which do you think it was?

At the beginning of the film, they set up Kirk's character as unable to bear a quiet retirement, to needing to be in the middle of the action.

The Nexus is set up as the place that knows and gives you exactly the life you want.

And so Kirk, once inside the Nexus, gets exactly what his character needs. Right back in action, right? Well... no. A quiet retirement.

In writing, the payoff is supposed to match the setup. In this case, it doesn't. It's the exact opposite.

Moore himself expressed disappointment for the movie and admited in the commentary for "Generations" it was a script he wasn't mature enough yet to write. Braga and Moore were writing "All Good Things..." as they were finishing up "Generations," and, according to Braga in the "Generations" commentary, Braga was more than a little worried that the script for "All Good Things" was much better than "Generations." (His exact words in the commentary was, "Oh, my God... 'All Good Things' is better!")
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow 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 12:02 AM.

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