What sunk the TNG movie franchise: Insurrection or Nemesis?

[BillJ]

Relayer1 wrote:

---

I think the problem was simply that none of the TNG films were very good. Certainly nowhere near as good as the series at its best.

I don't like First Contact very much, but the others were dismal, although Nemesis was somewhat better than Insurrection and Generations...

It doesn't say much for the movies when Nemesis is the best of the bunch.

[Vasquez Rocks]

Lance wrote:

---

Sometimes I wonder if it was actually First Contact which torpedoed the Picard character we knew and loved from TV. GENS clearly shows us TV Picard, a man who tries to reason with Soran, and who tries to use brute force only once all other options are extinguished. FC, as you rightly say, still feels 'correct' with TV Picard, but only because the Borg situation opens up an old wound that he never truly healed. The kicker comes in Insurrection, where the relative success of FC seems to have resulted in the writer saying "Okay, so Picard is now an action hero". The unique qualities which made him stand out on TNG when compared opposite Shatner's Kirk were abandoned, and in the remaining two movies we got a very different interpretation of Picard. What the writers forgot is that his character transformation in FC was driven by the situation. The Borg were a wild card. His character transformation in INS and NEM on the other hand is driven by nothing. It just seems so out of left field, and ends up looking bizarre to those of us who have watched this character for 7+ years on television.

He's not all action in those two movies. It might seem that way at first, but with Insurrection he does try to reason with Admiral Dougherty before he resorts to taking action. Much of the fighting comes in the second half of the film. Same with Nemesis. There's the ready room scene between him and Shinzon where he actually stops the battle between the two ships and tries to reach him through reason. Only after all talk fails does he go action mode.

TV Picard is in those movies, maybe not all the way through, but then again there were some "action" Picard episodes on the series too. I think the movies had a pretty decent balance between the two. Do I wish they could have done more? Sure, but I'm willing to bet the studio wouldn't have gone for a less action filled science fiction film. Afterall they were the ones who wanted a more "actiony" ending in INS with the Enterprise coming to save the day and guns blazing.

[DalekJim]

I think Picard was pretty dead-on in Insurrection. He didn't get much action really and his more memorable scenes are of him giving moral speeches.

We didn't get anything as pointless as say, a young Kirk fleeing from the police in a car blaring out classic rock . Or a random ice monster attack. All the action in Insurrection made sense in its placement in the film, even if some things are goofy like the joystick.

[RAMA]

BillJ wrote:

---

It doesn't say much for the movies when Nemesis is the best of the bunch.

In terms of critical ratings on Rotten Tomatoes , it's: ST09: 95% , STFC: 92%, STII: 91%

[BillJ]

RAMA wrote:

---

In terms of critical ratings on Rotten Tomatoes , it's: ST09: 95% , STFC: 92%, STII: 91%

Nemesis was the deepest thematically of the TNG films.

[sonak]

BillJ wrote:

---

Nemesis was the deepest thematically of the TNG films.

true, but only for lack of strong competition.

[Nero's Shadow]

Should have stopped at generations in my opinion ?? FC ok INS awful now when I re watch it NEM ok ish......

What would have been good is putting some new Characters in generations then putting them in every othe TNG film mix it up a bit IMO also perhaps bringing DS9 characters into the mix maybe DS9.

Fair enough fans paradise but hard to explain to normal movie goers ???

[Lance]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I think Picard was pretty dead-on in Insurrection. He didn't get much action really and his more memorable scenes are of him giving moral speeches.

We didn't get anything as pointless as say, a young Kirk fleeing from the police in a car blaring out classic rock . Or a random ice monster attack. All the action in Insurrection made sense in its placement in the film, even if some things are goofy like the joystick.

I think it's perfectly true to Riker's character that he thinks he can make the Enterprise do what he wants simply by taking a firm grip on his stick and giving it a little waggle.

[DalekJim]

I marathoned all the Trek films this weekend. I'd put Insurrection and First Contact in my Top 5 of the movie series, below Wrath of Khan, The Motion Picture and Undiscovered Country. They're not amazing films or anything but they were highly enjoyable watches, whereas I found Voyage Home a chore for pandering/spoon-feeding too much to non-fans and Trek haters. Nemesis was very... flat. Not awful, just flat.

So, I maintain that Generations gets the hate that the other TNG films deserve. It's a film with no drive or purpose. The only film of the original 10 that I can say I dislike. The rest are all pretty watchable.

[BillJ]

DalekJim wrote:

---

...whereas I found Voyage Home a chore for pandering/spoon-feeding too much to non-fans and Trek haters.

Trek haters.

It was made by essentially the same people who made The Wrath of Khan.

[DalekJim]

Other opinions are so funny.

Voyage Home definitely tried to distance itself from being a Star Trek movie to attract a wider audience. It was a smart business movie but I prefer the more sci-fi orientated films. I watch Star Trek to escape.

[BillJ]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Other opinions are so funny.

Voyage Home definitely tried to distance itself from being a Star Trek movie to attract a wider audience. It was a smart business movie but I prefer the more sci-fi orientated films. I watch Star Trek to escape.

After two emotionally heavy movies, it made sense to switch gears and offer a "change of pace" film.

Your opinions are funny, so often laced with disrespect for those around you because they have differing tastes.

[sonak]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I marathoned all the Trek films this weekend. I'd put Insurrection and First Contact in my Top 5 of the movie series, below Wrath of Khan, The Motion Picture and Undiscovered Country. They're not amazing films or anything but they were highly enjoyable watches, whereas I found Voyage Home a chore for pandering/spoon-feeding too much to non-fans and Trek haters. Nemesis was very... flat. Not awful, just flat.

So, I maintain that Generations gets the hate that the other TNG films deserve. It's a film with no drive or purpose. The only film of the original 10 that I can say I dislike. The rest are all pretty watchable.

no drive or purpose? What does that mean? What great purpose does Insurrection have that Generations lacks? boob and pimple jokes?

[DalekJim]

Insurrection had a story, a conflict and central dilemma. Generations seemed pretty... random in structure and concept. Insurrection had a very muddled purpose but Generations didn't have one at all.

BillJ wrote:

---

Your opinions are funny, so often laced with disrespect for those around you because they have differing tastes.

I've done nothing wrong this time at all and won't even reply to your further attempts to engineer conflict for entertainment.

[sonak]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Insurrection had a story, a conflict and central dilemma. Generations seemed pretty... random in structure and concept. Insurrection had a very muddled purpose but Generations didn't have one at all.

I've done nothing wrong this time at all and won't even reply to your further attempts to engineer conflict for entertainment.

Generations had a central story- Dr. Soran trying to get to the Nexus

yeah, there is a bit of "stuff sort of thrown in" to the movie, but there's also glue holding it together. To each their own, I just think that Generations is light-years ahead of Insurrection.