RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,670
Posts: 5,429,502
Members: 24,822
Currently online: 540
Newest member: The Great Duck


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 4 2013, 04:40 AM   #151
CoveTom
Rear Admiral
 
Location: CoveTom
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

^ Yes. And it would have made a much better film that way. I know Picard had a personal connection with the Borg, and I also know that Patrick Stewart wanted to make sure that he was the center of attention.

But, let's face it. Picard is the history buff and the thinker. The character, as we knew him from TNG, would kill to have the opportunity to actually interact with one of the legendary figures from history and help him with his work. Riker, OTOH, was always the action guy, and him leading the charge on the Enterprise alongside Worf also makes perfect sense. And Riker, too, does have a personal history with the Borg and knows their tactics and their weaknesses.

Flipping the two can be forgiven in this case because of Picard's history with the Borg, but I still think it would have been a more effective film with the roles the way they were originally written.

And while action Picard worked in this film, to do it again in Insurrection and then again in Nemesis was overkill. Yes, we saw Picard do action in TNG. But episodes like "Starship Mine" were the exception, not the rule. We needed to see more of the thoughtful man we knew from the series.
CoveTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2013, 08:02 PM   #152
Admiral James Kirk
Writer
 
Admiral James Kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

CoveTom wrote: View Post

And while action Picard worked in this film, to do it again in Insurrection and then again in Nemesis was overkill. Yes, we saw Picard do action in TNG. But episodes like "Starship Mine" were the exception, not the rule. We needed to see more of the thoughtful man we knew from the series.
Patrick Stewart not only would have disagreed with you he would have vociferously disagreed with you. Michael Piller and he argued back and forth on this issue all throughout the writing of Insurrection. This was documented in Piller's book, Fade In: The Writing of Star Trek: Insurrection.
Admiral James Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2013, 10:00 PM   #153
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?

Admiral James Kirk wrote: View Post
CoveTom wrote: View Post

And while action Picard worked in this film, to do it again in Insurrection and then again in Nemesis was overkill. Yes, we saw Picard do action in TNG. But episodes like "Starship Mine" were the exception, not the rule. We needed to see more of the thoughtful man we knew from the series.
Patrick Stewart not only would have disagreed with you he would have vociferously disagreed with you. Michael Piller and he argued back and forth on this issue all throughout the writing of Insurrection. This was documented in Piller's book, Fade In: The Writing of Star Trek: Insurrection.
That book shows why stars should stay out of the writing process unless they are capable writers.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2013, 10:10 PM   #154
Admiral James Kirk
Writer
 
Admiral James Kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Tucson, AZ
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Sure does.
Admiral James Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 12:17 AM   #155
Lee Enfield
Lieutenant
 
Lee Enfield's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

CoveTom wrote: View Post
^ Yes. And it would have made a much better film that way. I know Picard had a personal connection with the Borg, and I also know that Patrick Stewart wanted to make sure that he was the center of attention.
Actually, I always thought, him stepping out of character/we seeing more of the other side worked very good in FC. Especially because of the Borg Connection.

CoveTom wrote: View Post
But, let's face it. Picard is the history buff and the thinker. The character, as we knew him from TNG, would kill to have the opportunity to actually interact with one of the legendary figures from history and help him with his work. Riker, OTOH, was always the action guy, and him leading the charge on the Enterprise alongside Worf also makes perfect sense. And Riker, too, does have a personal history with the Borg and knows their tactics and their weaknesses.
I agree. Riker being the tactics buff would've made a good show as well. But then you don't have this personal drama with Picard and giving in to the power of the Borg and loosing again something that he needs and likes(Home/Enterprise).
I always loved the Moby Dick Dialogue. Wouldn've been "possible" with Picard on the planet.

CoveTom wrote: View Post
And while action Picard worked in this film, to do it again in Insurrection and then again in Nemesis was overkill. Yes, we saw Picard do action in TNG. But episodes like "Starship Mine" were the exception, not the rule. We needed to see more of the thoughtful man we knew from the series.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
Lee Enfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 04:08 AM   #156
Jonesy
Commodore
 
Jonesy's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Anji wrote: View Post
No, it was not a mistake to take TNG to the big screen, but it was a mistake as to how they were done. All three movies seemed rushed and it seemed to me that no one, especially the actors, took the films seriously. They all assumed because it was Star Trek it was going to be an automatic hit and there was no reason to put forth any effort in the acting, directing or writing of the productions.
I'm still amazed that Michael Piller wrote something like "Insurrection", especially given the great work he did for the tv series.
__________________
"Well..some people should never be promoted." - Garak
Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 04:10 AM   #157
Jonesy
Commodore
 
Jonesy's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

BillJ wrote: View Post
]
That book shows why stars should stay out of the writing process unless they are capable writers.
One of the most fatal errors that Star Trek has done for the movie series is exactly that (both TOS and TNG).
__________________
"Well..some people should never be promoted." - Garak
Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 04:39 AM   #158
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?

Jonesy wrote: View Post
Anji wrote: View Post
No, it was not a mistake to take TNG to the big screen, but it was a mistake as to how they were done. All three movies seemed rushed and it seemed to me that no one, especially the actors, took the films seriously. They all assumed because it was Star Trek it was going to be an automatic hit and there was no reason to put forth any effort in the acting, directing or writing of the productions.
I'm still amazed that Michael Piller wrote something like "Insurrection", especially given the great work he did for the tv series.

I agree
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 06:27 AM   #159
Lee Enfield
Lieutenant
 
Lee Enfield's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

sonak wrote: View Post
Jonesy wrote: View Post
Anji wrote: View Post
No, it was not a mistake to take TNG to the big screen, but it was a mistake as to how they were done. All three movies seemed rushed and it seemed to me that no one, especially the actors, took the films seriously. They all assumed because it was Star Trek it was going to be an automatic hit and there was no reason to put forth any effort in the acting, directing or writing of the productions.
I'm still amazed that Michael Piller wrote something like "Insurrection", especially given the great work he did for the tv series.

I agree

...ah, perhaps thats why the movie felt like a tv episode...
Lee Enfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 12:16 PM   #160
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

I might be bursting some people's bubbles here, but TNG's switch from television to films happened twenty (20, vingt, veinte, venti, dwadzieścia, ZWANZIG!) years ago, and TNG's last outing was ten (10, you get the idea) years ago.

So WHATEVER decision they made back then, TNG would be over by now, replaced by something else. Had they continued the show, it would have ended 5 years later because the entire cast jumped off, and the ratings were already dropping anyways. Had they remade TOS, those remakes would be over by now as well. Had they done a new show, it would be over. 20 years is a very long time.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 05:22 PM   #161
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I might be bursting some people's bubbles here, but TNG's switch from television to films happened twenty (20, vingt, veinte, venti, dwadzieścia, ZWANZIG!) years ago, and TNG's last outing was ten (10, you get the idea) years ago.

So WHATEVER decision they made back then, TNG would be over by now, replaced by something else. Had they continued the show, it would have ended 5 years later because the entire cast jumped off, and the ratings were already dropping anyways. Had they remade TOS, those remakes would be over by now as well. Had they done a new show, it would be over. 20 years is a very long time.
Sorry, we didn't realize we we not allowed to discuss something that happened 20 years ago

Anyway, I've said it before, but I'll reiterate: The switch to movies was the right idea at the time, but they just needed to make better movies. In retrospect, the TNG films steadily hurt the "franchise" instead of making it more popular. In my own personal opinion they should have never been made, and focus instead should have been put upon an eighth season devoted entirely to having the crew winding down their assignments. Picard and Beverly should have gotten together, retired from Starfleet and marry. Riker should have eventually married Troi as well, gotten command of the Enterprise, and had Worf as his XO. Data should have gotten command of his own ship, with Geordi as his XO.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 05:52 PM   #162
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

IMHO moving TNG to movies was a good decision, it was the execution that was the problem. Seven seasons is enough for pretty much any series. I just wish the TNG movies were more serial, like Star Trek 2-4 and 6 were. All the TNG movies were more or less self contained, didn't have the feel quite like the TNG series, and didn't have many references to TV continuity. Generations could have been done better, but the basic premise was fine with me. 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. Insurrection was more like a typical TNG episode, that the only thing horrible was the Pintafore singing crap. 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).
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 12:41 AM   #163
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

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.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 12:56 AM   #164
Jonesy
Commodore
 
Jonesy's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

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.
__________________
"Well..some people should never be promoted." - Garak
Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 01:00 AM   #165
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

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.

Last edited by Dream; May 13 2013 at 01:24 AM.
Dream 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 04:06 PM.

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