Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

[RyuRoots]

Beyond Antares wrote:

---

Okey Dokey.

I'm glad you're contributing so much to the thread by apparently enjoying my signature, but did you have any replies to my POST, perchance?

[xortex]

After seven seasons, Braga and Moore were lost and highly dispersed. TOS was steeped in tradition and older more experienced writers who knew how to write allegory not just metaphor however irrelevant it was in the TNG movies.

[Agenda]

RyuRoots wrote:

---

I'm glad you're contributing so much to the thread by apparently enjoying my signature, but did you have any replies to my POST, perchance?

Your signature shows just how biased you are against TOS, so in a way it is a reply to your post.

[Broccoli]

sonak wrote:

---

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

Was I misinformed?

Rick Berman served as executive producer for all the TNG films in addition to contributing to each film's story. In this role, he basically was the guy in charge of everything.

[KarmicCurse]

The TOS movies felt like movies. It's not so much a matter of special effects or sets as it is about pace and scale.

The TNG movies felt like a TV show. I keep expecting a fade-out to a commercial. Also they were too kid friendly, as the sequel shows were way too often.

[Herkimer Jitty]

I grew up on TNG. I was familiar with Picard and Co. before I knew Kirk, Spock, and Bones.

But I am of the opinion that the TNG films are shite. I doubt just one factor contributed to it, but I guess the direction Trek was headed on TV at the time definitley had a hand in this.

I'm of the opinion that Berman-era Trek was rooted too deeply in paying homage to past Trek, and adhering to stringent storytelling conventions that strictly structurally defined what Star Trek was. Which more often than not, was boring.

[Skywalker]

Aside from TWOK and some of TVH and TUC (basically, the Meyer movies), I don't think the TOS films are really all that much better than the TNG films, overall. They're about even, I think. None of them are on the same level as STXI from a cinematic standpoint, though of course XI's budget was much larger than any of the first ten movies'.

[Saito S]

Beyond Antares wrote:

---

Your signature shows just how biased you are against TOS, so in a way it is a reply to your post.

Everyone is biased in one way or another. So he doesn't care for TOS, or for most of the TOS movies. I fail to see how that makes his opinion somehow less valid.

KarmicCurse wrote:

---

The TOS movies felt like movies. It's not so much a matter of special effects or sets as it is about pace and scale.

The TNG movies felt like a TV show. I keep expecting a fade-out to a commercial.

I only felt this way about INS, personally.

Also they were too kid friendly, as the sequel shows were way too often.

How were the TNG movies "kid friendly", exactly?

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

---

I grew up on TNG. I was familiar with Picard and Co. before I knew Kirk, Spock, and Bones.

But I am of the opinion that the TNG films are shite. I doubt just one factor contributed to it, but I guess the direction Trek was headed on TV at the time definitley had a hand in this.

I'm of the opinion that Berman-era Trek was rooted too deeply in paying homage to past Trek, and adhering to stringent storytelling conventions that strictly structurally defined what Star Trek was. Which more often than not, was boring.

I agree with what you are saying about the problems with Berman-era Trek. That is, I agree with your assesment of what, in general, those problems were, but for me, they didn't have AS much of an impact on my enjoyment of the movies. It very much applies to VOY, however, and even more so to ENT.

All of that said, I don't think either the TOS or TNG movies have an edge against the other, personally. At their absolute BEST, I feel the movies couldn't touch the very best that the Trek TV shows had to offer in terms of depth. The better ones were fun movies, sure, but that's it. TMP was the only one out of all eleven films that tries to be more than an action movie (and it fails for being just a bad movie, but at least it aimed for some high-concept sci-fi instead of a villain-based action piece). TVH, of course, is also not "villain based action", but it's a comedic romp, and while it's lots of fun, it's hardly deep or impactful beyond that. I will say that several of the movies do a good job with character development, specifically. But in the end, the core of almost every Trek film is "beat bad guy, stop threat, save day."

My favorites overall are TUC and FC, and even then, I think both of those are "very good", but not "great." TVH, GEN, and STXI slot in next, at "good" (and GEN does get a special mention for being, IMO, the single Trek film with the best cinematography and most grand feel). Most of the rest I generally don't think too highly of, topping out at "okay" or "heavily flawed with some redeeming qualities here and there." The exception is TFF, which just sucks.

So in the end, my answer to the OP would be: they aren't. But they aren't especially worse on the whole, either.

[Maurice]

sonak wrote:

---

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...

Those are plot events. DOING something with a character means doing something dramatic: making the character have to solve problems or make a choice. Of the above list the only ones that meet the criteria might be Picard DEALING with the deaths in his family, and Data DEALING with his newfound emotions.

[CorporalCaptain]

Saito S wrote:

---

TMP was the only one out of all eleven films that tries to be more than an action movie (and it fails for being just a bad movie, but at least it aimed for some high-concept sci-fi instead of a villain-based action piece). TVH, of course, is also not "villain based action", but it's a comedic romp, and while it's lots of fun, it's hardly deep or impactful beyond that. I will say that several of the movies do a good job with character development, specifically. But in the end, the core of almost every Trek film is "beat bad guy, stop threat, save day."

Die Hard, First Blood, and Enter the Dragon are examples of action movies.

The Voyage Home is not an action movie at all.

The Wrath of Khan has quite a bit of action in it, but it also spends a lot of time focusing exclusively on character interactions and development. To say that the only theme of TWOK is to defeat Khan is really to miss the point entirely. It's about facing mortality, most prominently Kirk aging and Spock sacrificing himself to save the ship. The climax of the movie does not come when Khan dies, but when Spock dies.

The Search for Spock has little action.

I don't think you are using the term "action film" the way it's generally used. I think a better term for these Star Trek movies would be science fiction adventure films. Others can address the rest.

[malchya]

I have to agree with the consensus that the TNG films, with the notable exception of First Contact, just felt like extended television episodes. All of them, including First Contact, suffered - IMHO - from being poorly written and edited. The only one of the films that seemed well directed (as in by a Director, not plot direction) was, again, First Contact. For all of my dislike of TWOK, it was well written and generally well directed; where it fell apart for me was in post production (the ship to ship combat was not believable to me, despite the excellent model work). TSFS also had some sfx issues and was more sloppily written, but still better than any of TNG. The only TOS film that, to me, was worse than any of TNG films was TVH. Lordy, but I do despise that sanctimonious piece of ham handed fluff!

[spooky spice]

Starbreaker wrote:

---

The [TNG] stories were pretty poor. Nothing more than oversized episodes.

Agree

[QUOTE=sonak;5242272]

Beyond Antares wrote:

---

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

Hit a guy with a pot...?

[JarodRussell]

It seems to me that Berman wasn't a very powerful movie producer. He got so much shit thrown at him by the studio, do this, do that. Generations was basically the attempt to connect plot points required by Paramount. Insurrection and Nemesis suffered from too much intervention by Stewart and Spiner. Stuart Baird directed Nemesis only because of some flimsy horse-trading with Paramount, and Logan got to write the script because Spiner did him a favor.

I don't know if stuff like this happened during the production of the TOS movies. Except for The Final Frontier, when Shatner got the job, and Paramount lost faith in the film, and then threw shit at him as well. Paramount could have gotten ILM for the effects and Sean Connery as Sybok, but no, it had to be at the same time as Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (also a Paramount movie).

[Therin of Andor]

^Welcome to Hollywood.

[sonak]

I don't get the criticism that the TNG movies "felt like episodes." Other than INS (and ironically the popular FC, which DID strike me as a plot they could have used for a two-parter, albeit with a lower budget), this doesn't strike me as very accurate.

I think Generations and Nemesis are both very cinematic and at least LOOKED pretty great, despite whatever other problems they may have had.

I've never seen this "TNG movies feel like overlong episodes" criticism from professional critics, so I suspect it's a Trek fandom meme.