Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

[The Overlord]

In terms of a general consensus amongst film buffs, there have been several good TOS films, but only one good TNG film (First Contact).

So why are TOS films better then the TNG films?

[Starbreaker]

The stories were pretty poor. Nothing more than oversized episodes.

[Therin of Andor]

The Overlord wrote:

---

So why are TOS films better then the TNG films?

The first TOS movie was an onscreen cast reunion after a ten year absence of new live-action ST stories. Everything was greatly upscaled, esp. the SPFX. Each movie was a huge anticipatory event for the fans (and general public).

TNG went straight from a popular seven-year TV series to a series of overblown telemovies made for the big screen, which we had to pay $$$$ to see - while DS9, and then VOY, were still on free-to-air TV, essentially in competition. Ho hum. Only "First Contact" seemed to capture that cinematic experience that Paramount was seeking.

[David cgc]

I can only say it was immensely disturbing to me when it was pointed out that "Nemesis" and "The Wrath of Khan" were both made about the same amount of time after their respective series started, and just comparing the energy level of the cast between the two. The TOS crew was more lively than that even in "The Undiscovered Country." And I'm (relatively) fond of "Nemesis."

[JarodRussell]

They look "bigger" visually (even though Generations kicks ass visually, too). More on par with the other science fiction films released at the same time. The stories are more interesting. And yeah, the characters are more likable. Or at least I don't like the focus on Picard and Data in all four TNG movies. If I needed to choose between Generations, Nemesis and The Final Frontier, I'd pick TFF first, Generations second, and pass on Nemesis.

[Dream]

All of them feel like TV movies with the exception of TMP and STXI.

[Herbert]

I believe that much of the success of the TOS movies is due to the participation of Nicholas Meyer.

[Donny]

Herbert wrote:

---

I believe that much of the success of the TOS movies is due to the participation of Nicholas Meyer.

I couldn't agree more. Nicholas Meyer knew how to direct a movie, and how to get really good acting out of Shatner. TWOK and TUC are my two favorite Trek films hands down. His darker, hard-edged militaristic approach really gave both those films a more dramatic look about them, which I believe TSFS was lacking, although I love that film too. The sets look a lot cheaper in the films he didn't direct.

He also helped write IV, which is also considered one of the best (although I'm not too fond of it).

The TNG films all suffered from a tired franchise, IMO, and because they didn't have the ensemble cast interplay that the TOS films had (for example, how all the TNG films were very Picard/Data centric)

[Gojira]

Dream wrote:

---

All of them feel like TV movies with the exception of TMP and STXI.

I agree! I do like all of the movies but the first and most recent are the only ones to feel like a big production theatrical release.

[Balrog]

I'm going to say it - Rick Berman.

He should have stuck with television.

[sonak]

Lloyd_Dobler wrote:

---

I'm going to say it - Rick Berman.

He should have stuck with television.

um, I thought the TNG movies were a product of Braga, Moore, Piller, Spiner, and Logan.

Was I misinformed?

[Agenda]

I can think of at least two reasons:

-The TOS movies weren't afraid to take more risks with the main characters, which in turn made the films seem more worthwhile. For instance, Kirk tries to overcome the limitations of getting older, while Picard turns into a young-at-heart Rambo. Which character's struggle is more engaging?

-I liked that some of the TOS movies were actually *about* something. They were morality tales that covered important issues of the time - to me, that was the heart of Star Trek as a series. You had a pro-environmental message with Voyage Home and an anti-cold war message with Undiscovered. The closest we got to a real issues-based flick with TNG was Insurrection, and I'm not really sure what that flick was about - the displacement indigenous populations? Not exactly a hot topic of the time.

[RyuRoots]

They're not. TOS has 6 movies, and two good ones (TVH and TUC)

TNG has 4 movies and two good ones (GEN and FC)

TNG has a BETTER ratio, if anything. And frankly, nothing in INS or NEM touches the cartoonishly forced plot events of TWOK or the juvenile idiocy of TFF (although Insurrection tries, on that second one).

[Agenda]

Star Trek: 1987-Present

Okey Dokey.

[sonak]

Beyond Antares wrote:

---

I can think of at least two reasons:

-The TOS movies weren't afraid to take more risks with the main characters, which in turn made the films seem more worthwhile. For instance, Kirk tries to overcome the limitations of getting older, while Picard turns into a young-at-heart Rambo. Which character's struggle is more engaging?

-I liked that some of the TOS movies were actually *about* something. They were morality tales that covered important issues of the time - to me, that was the heart of Star Trek as a series. You had a pro-environmental message with Voyage Home and an anti-cold war message with Undiscovered. The closest we got to a real issues-based flick with TNG was Insurrection, and I'm not really sure what that flick was about - the displacement indigenous populations? Not exactly a hot topic of the time.

TNG tried doing stuff with the characters. Data got the emotion chip. Riker and Troi got together.

Picard lost his brother and nephew. Geordi traded in his VISOR.

Dr. Crusher..... Dr. Crusher... er, um...