RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,683
Posts: 5,212,938
Members: 24,205
Currently online: 823
Newest member: JMSmith97


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 21 2013, 07:29 AM   #181
CobraCommander
Lieutenant Commander
 
CobraCommander's Avatar
 
Location: Nor Cal
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

I agree the TNG movies came too soon. Generations should never have been made. The production team should have focused on making FC an epic classic/ writing a solid plot. Losing the Ent-D to the Borg would have made more sense for Picard becoming Ahab. As it stands now,his tirade to Lily about not losing another Enterprise doesn't relate to the Borg. He lost his state of the art and fully manned ship facing an obsolete Klingon Bird of Prey. Another issue with FC was how it's battle with the Borg and near destruction of the Defiant were not mentioned on DS9. It was also a lousy way to get Worf back on the Enterprise.
CobraCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2013, 01:51 PM   #182
Trek Survivor
Captain
 
Location: UK
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.
I agree with you on "Nemesis".

I disagree with you that TNG is "more soap opera than an action series". It's most definitely not soap opera. It may be "more suited" to the TV screen, but that's not the same thing.


CobraCommander wrote: View Post
I agree the TNG movies came too soon. Generations should never have been made. The production team should have focused on making FC an epic classic/ writing a solid plot....

...Another issue with FC was how it's battle with the Borg and near destruction of the Defiant were not mentioned on DS9. It was also a lousy way to get Worf back on the Enterprise.
On the latter point: That's a "fault" with DS9 (Behr was unhappy at how the Defiant was treated in FC, hence the refusal to acknowledge the damage); as for a 'lousy way' to bring Worf back... really? I thought it was rather good, and certainly better than "Insurrection" which just couldn't be bothered to explain it at all!

As for your first point: Not sure of your age, or how long you've been into Trek, but back in 1994 there was a massive demand for more TNG, and the hype for "Generations" was...well, I personally think the period '94-'96 is when Trek was at its pop culture/mainstream zenith. There's no way a film wasn't going to be made, or do well.

It's easy with hindsight now to plot a different course (and I agree ideally there should've been a longer wait to build up even more anticipation), but at the time, "Generations" was absolutely the right move.
__________________
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 21 2013, 05:57 PM   #183
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?

Trek Survivor wrote: View Post
On the latter point: That's a "fault" with DS9 (Behr was unhappy at how the Defiant was treated in FC, hence the refusal to acknowledge the damage);
Actually, the original intention was to destroy the Defiant in FC. Behr was upset about the Defiant's destruction, and suggested he'd ignore it on DS9 and co ntinue using it anyway. Hence the scene was rewritten with the "tough little ship" being "damaged but salvagable."
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 12:23 AM   #184
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?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Trek Survivor wrote: View Post
On the latter point: That's a "fault" with DS9 (Behr was unhappy at how the Defiant was treated in FC, hence the refusal to acknowledge the damage);
Actually, the original intention was to destroy the Defiant in FC. Behr was upset about the Defiant's destruction, and suggested he'd ignore it on DS9 and co ntinue using it anyway. Hence the scene was rewritten with the "tough little ship" being "damaged but salvagable."
They wanted to destroy it ? That's... idiotic. It was one of the things people loved about DS9.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22 2013, 03:52 PM   #185
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
sonak wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
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!")

yeah, Kirk's nexus fantasy didn't make sense as wish fulfillment, but it could as a "road not taken" fantasy, much like Picard's. And of course they both ultimately reject it anyway.

I'm aware of Moore and Braga's criticisms of it, but I think a lot of that is a reaction to fan reception.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 07:56 AM   #186
Eddie Roth
Commodore
 
Eddie Roth's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

I recently watched the TNG films again, and I can say that Generations is probably "the best". Which isn't saying much because all four have severe problems. But this one at least feels like an event picture.

Both FC and INS are simply too small. Yes, FC too. As I've said often, it's essentially a bottle show and a missed opportunity to make the return of the Borg something epic (I do hope that the next Bad Robot film will use the Borg and make them interesting again). There's also narrative smallness in the character of the Borg Queen, who reduces the Borg to a bunch of zombie henchmen to an EEEEVIL seductress who cannot express herself except in double entendre and confusing hogwash disguised as mind-bending philosophy. Nah.

Compared to that, NEM actually holds up pretty well. It's a copy-and-paste job of previous films, yes, and the villain doesn't make much sense, but then again, neither did some that came before him. The cast interactions, on the other hand, are really good in this one and, in contrast to its two immediate predecessors, at least an attempt was made to make the film cinematic.

So was TNG on the silver screen a mistake? Well, no. It was the logical thing to do once the original cast had retired. No other big-screen Trek could've been made at the time. And seeing how the TV shows fizzled out a few years later, that might've been the absolute end for ST altogether. The films, mixed bag that they were in the TNG era, at least kept the general public aware that there was a thing called Star Trek - which could then be revived to great effect in 2009. But it would've been nicer if the TNG films had kept the high quality of the series.

I blame committee writing for this. Too many cooks, too many opinions on what kind of narrative and what kind of scope a ST film should have. Plus: Rick Berman, who I dare say was in over his head with movie-producing.
Eddie Roth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 10:32 AM   #187
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?

All TNG movies feel like blown-up episodes. Seems they just wanted to move to the big screen because... well, because.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 10:53 AM   #188
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Belz... wrote: View Post
They wanted to destroy it ? That's... idiotic. It was one of the things people loved about DS9.
The movie wasn't about DS9, and eventual DS9 producers destroyed it themselves.

(spoiler alert)

T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 11:31 AM   #189
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?

Yeah, but as a plot point.


If you're going to make a connection to DS9, why make such a stupid move ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 01:36 PM   #190
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?

Belz... wrote: View Post
All TNG movies feel like blown-up episodes. Seems they just wanted to move to the big screen because... well, because.
no, they wanted to go to the big screen because the show was clearly running out of gas and the cast was getting too expensive to keep on TV anyway. Movies made more sense than doing TNG until season fourteen.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 02:28 PM   #191
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?

Except that doing bigger episodes for the big screen doesn't work very well.

TNG's seasons were done. Didn't they plan for 7 ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 03:21 PM   #192
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Eddie Roth wrote: View Post
I recently watched the TNG films again, and I can say that Generations is probably "the best". Which isn't saying much because all four have severe problems. But this one at least feels like an event picture.

Both FC and INS are simply too small. Yes, FC too. As I've said often, it's essentially a bottle show and a missed opportunity to make the return of the Borg something epic (I do hope that the next Bad Robot film will use the Borg and make them interesting again). There's also narrative smallness in the character of the Borg Queen, who reduces the Borg to a bunch of zombie henchmen to an EEEEVIL seductress who cannot express herself except in double entendre and confusing hogwash disguised as mind-bending philosophy. Nah.

Compared to that, NEM actually holds up pretty well. It's a copy-and-paste job of previous films, yes, and the villain doesn't make much sense, but then again, neither did some that came before him. The cast interactions, on the other hand, are really good in this one and, in contrast to its two immediate predecessors, at least an attempt was made to make the film cinematic.

So was TNG on the silver screen a mistake? Well, no. It was the logical thing to do once the original cast had retired. No other big-screen Trek could've been made at the time. And seeing how the TV shows fizzled out a few years later, that might've been the absolute end for ST altogether. The films, mixed bag that they were in the TNG era, at least kept the general public aware that there was a thing called Star Trek - which could then be revived to great effect in 2009. But it would've been nicer if the TNG films had kept the high quality of the series.

I blame committee writing for this. Too many cooks, too many opinions on what kind of narrative and what kind of scope a ST film should have. Plus: Rick Berman, who I dare say was in over his head with movie-producing.
Funny, I thought Nemesis was the least cinematic of the TNG films. It feels like a stage play with a couple of space shots. Heck, you can see that it is a WALLPAPER behind them during the wedding thing at the beginning.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 04:57 PM   #193
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?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Funny, I thought Nemesis was the least cinematic of the TNG films.
It feels like a 2-part episode that got souped-up for the big screen. That's also the way Insurrection feels (in a good way, for me), but the only TNG movie that feels like a movie is Generations, and it's my least favourite Trek picture. Great idea, crappy execution.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 05:28 PM   #194
Eddie Roth
Commodore
 
Eddie Roth's Avatar
 
Location: Germany
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Eddie Roth wrote: View Post
I recently watched the TNG films again, and I can say that Generations is probably "the best". Which isn't saying much because all four have severe problems. But this one at least feels like an event picture.

Both FC and INS are simply too small. Yes, FC too. As I've said often, it's essentially a bottle show and a missed opportunity to make the return of the Borg something epic (I do hope that the next Bad Robot film will use the Borg and make them interesting again). There's also narrative smallness in the character of the Borg Queen, who reduces the Borg to a bunch of zombie henchmen to an EEEEVIL seductress who cannot express herself except in double entendre and confusing hogwash disguised as mind-bending philosophy. Nah.

Compared to that, NEM actually holds up pretty well. It's a copy-and-paste job of previous films, yes, and the villain doesn't make much sense, but then again, neither did some that came before him. The cast interactions, on the other hand, are really good in this one and, in contrast to its two immediate predecessors, at least an attempt was made to make the film cinematic.
Funny, I thought Nemesis was the least cinematic of the TNG films. It feels like a stage play with a couple of space shots. Heck, you can see that it is a WALLPAPER behind them during the wedding thing at the beginning.
I said an attempt was made, not that it was entirely successful. Besides, being cinematic or not requires more than location shoots or sets that make you believe they are not "wallpapers". (For instance, watch The Empire Strikes Back on BD: You can clearly see where the matte paintings are - yet that doesn't make the film one iota less cinematic.)

It's rather about the scope of the narrative, as well as the consequences of same: Have the characters grown and changed? One can reasonably argue that in these terms one can skip both FC and INS and not have missed anything in the development of either the characters or the universe they inhabit. Most of the TOS films, plus GEN and, yes, NEM cannot be accused of maintaining the status quo.
Eddie Roth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 01:56 AM   #195
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Belz... wrote: View Post

If you're going to make a connection to DS9, why make such a stupid move ?
I'm still not sure why blowing up the Defiant while helping save Earth is a big deal? They've killed TOS characters in TNG and yet the franchise survived.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ 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 06:23 PM.

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