Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Lance, Feb 19, 2013.

  1. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    I would almost agree, but "Yes! That is it! I hate this. It is revolting!" still makes me laugh out loud.
     
  2. Peach Wookiee

    Peach Wookiee Cuddly Mod of Doom Moderator

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Location:
    Peach Wookiee
    ^It was appropriate to his emotion chip at the time. And then there was "YES!" And of course what everyone on the bridge was thinking as they were heading toward the planet... "OH SHIT!" He was the only one who could logically say it at the time.
     
  3. Gov Kodos

    Gov Kodos Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Location:
    Gov Kodos on Mohammed's Radio, WZVN Boston
    I don't think the move to movies was wrong, but the films always felt too much like the TV show. The movies' structure continued the TV show's desire to give the whole cast stories in the running time of the film rather than keep focused on the main story.

    While the cast had a different feel to many in the films to their TV show selves, the TOS films were just as different from the TV characterizations in many ways. For me the TNG films were too concerned with diverging from the TV show in look, pacing and characterization. Abrahms Trek did the right thing, I'd say, by not worrying about going off the path with the Trek Look and embraced making a whole new version of the franchise.

    Finally, the movies may not have been serviced by having the TV shows ongoing with looks and stories so similar to the films. It furthered the sense that these movies were no more than overlong TV episodes.
     
  4. Gaith

    Gaith Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Yeah, it would've taken something miraculous, like Spielberg offering to direct such a movie only, and Stewart standing by him. Or Stewart offering to do it as a TV movie for cheap. Would've probably hurt the feelings of the rest of the cast, too. "We all not good enough for you? Shouldn't this sort of story be a novel?"

    There's no reason for Uhura and Chekhov to still be on the Enterprise during the late TOS movies. At a certain point, the actor-character dynamic overshadows in-continuity logic.
     
  5. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    Paramount's movie division was thinking that it had been three years since the last Trek movie, and that TNG was a very hot property at the time.

    Hindsight is always 20-20 as the old saying goes, but Paramount's mindset in 1994 probably was to strike while the iron was hot rather than to let TNG cool off.
     
  6. Lance

    Lance Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Location:
    The Enterprise's Restroom
    I'll throw another theoretical hand-grenade out there: one of the things which arguably sinks the TNG movies like a stone (floatational Data optional!) is that they're all stand-alones. Look at the TOS movies, and every one of them from TWOK through to TVH (and possibly even TFF and TUC, thematically) are telling what we'd now call a 'story arc'. Each movie builds on the ending of the previous one, the story develops and the Trek universe feels much larger as a result. It's theatrical story-telling for theatrical movies.

    Contrast this to TNG, where every movie stands alone in and of itself, with (probably) the only link being Riker and Troi shagging in Insurrection leading to them getting married in Nemesis. The reason we so often hear the TNG movies being described as "double-sized TV episodes on the big screen" is because, limited as they are to self-contained plots, they feel like they've been written for television. First Contact being the one exception.
     
  7. USS Firefly

    USS Firefly Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    And the movies looked small, for example the old movies had a big Starbase from where the Enterprise left, I would have loved to see the Enterprise E leaving the Starbase.
    Or more Space ships
     
  8. Dream

    Dream Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Hotel Transylvania
    The TNG movies already had a noose around their necks when they started. The studios insisted on blowing up the Enterprise-D and killing Kirk in Generations, both really pissed off fans.
     
  9. Peach Wookiee

    Peach Wookiee Cuddly Mod of Doom Moderator

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Location:
    Peach Wookiee
    I think if the second had been done right, the first wouldn't have mattered so much.
     
  10. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    I was more upset about loss of the Enterprise-D than Kirk. I think it was because for a long time, I thought really only McCoy and Spock were the only members of the TOS gang still alive during TNG (with Scotty added after "Relics").

    I guess in hindsight, Generations bought back someone I already thought was dead and killed him twice in the same story.
    :vulcan:
     
  11. Dream

    Dream Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Hotel Transylvania
    A big problem I had was that blowing up the Enterprise-D and killing Kirk in Generations invalidated two of the best entries in Trek, TUC and "All Good Things".

    Many people expected TUC to be the last time we saw Kirk and the Enterprise-D would have much more adventures, but we were in for a rude awakening!:(
     
  12. Lance

    Lance Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Location:
    The Enterprise's Restroom
    I think Kirk's death has got dramatic potential if done properly. Like it was at the start of "Generations". For me the problem with the movie isn't that they killed James T. Kirk... it's that they killed him twice, but the fake first death at the start of the movie was better that the real second one. :vulcan:
     
  13. DalekJim

    DalekJim Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Generations is the most half-arsed effort of the movie franchise. Kirk's death is rushed, pointless and unmemorable which is everything it shouldn't have been.

    First Contact is a fun shoot 'em up, Insurrection is really underrated and Nemesis is really no dumber than Trek 2009. It just doesn't feel as fresh.
     
  14. Trek Survivor

    Trek Survivor Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    Most definitely "same". Extremely disappointed they went this route. If they wanted it lighted/framed differently, the ship could've just had a refit. Look how much the "original" Enterprise changed from season 3 of TOS to TMP.

    When I think of Star Trek III, and the sacrifice of the Enterprise, it sends shivers down my spine. When I think of "Generations" and the Ent-D crashing into a planet, I just don't get the same reaction.

    And as a TNG fan above all other Treks, I really should.
     
  15. Allyn Gibson

    Allyn Gibson Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Location:
    South Pennsyltucky
    There were two reasons the Enterprise-D was destroyed.

    The first was that Ron Moore had wanted to do it in season six (specifically, he wanted to crash the saucer into a planet), but they couldn't do it on a television budget. When Berman took ideas from Moore and Braga, that was one of the ideas they pulled out since they could do it properly on a movie's budget.

    The second was that the Enterprise-D filming model wasn't up to snuff for film. The ILM model was low on detail (the smaller 4-foot model had a more detailed surface than ILM's 6-foot model) and there weren't many good camera angles for it. The idea from an FX standpoint was that they could replace the model with something better suited to film in terms of resolution and usable angles. (That's roughly the same reason the Excelsior was built. Andy Probert's design for the Enterprise was fantastic, but the model didn't work well with ILM's equipment.)
     
  16. Andymator

    Andymator Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Where did you hear any of that? The 6 foot Enterprise D model was wayyyyyyy more detailed than the 4 foot. And there is no way the Excelsior was built because the Enterprise Refit was impractical... :confused:
     
  17. Allyn Gibson

    Allyn Gibson Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Location:
    South Pennsyltucky
    All of that was documented in Cinefantastique and other publications at the time. :)

    The only advantage the 6-foot Enterprise-D model had was that it was capable of the saucer separation.

    And ILM's Bill George would disagree with you that the Enterprise refit was an impractical filming model.
     
  18. Andymator

    Andymator Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    The 6 foot Enterprise D has the scale to include incredibly subtle and complex details the 4 footer didn't have, hence why they used it for Generations instead of the 4 foot model. The problem they had was with the sets, not the ship miniature.

    I'm sure the Refit Enterprise was an incredibly complex model, that's inevitable when you want to achieve the level of craft they were going for. What I said was that there was no way that the Excelsior was built because of that...
     
  19. Allyn Gibson

    Allyn Gibson Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Location:
    South Pennsyltucky
    They needed to use the 6-foot for Generations because of the saucer separation, even though it looked more unfinished than the 4-foot model. The 6-foot model had a smooth, unfinished surface, while the 4-foot model had a textured surface that depicted the detail the actual ship would have had.

    The Excelsior was easier to work with because it was built to ILM's specifications. Even the Reliant model was easier for ILM to work with than the Enterprise model. The Enterprise model had two problems. It was too big for ILM's motion rig and didn't mate well to it. Plus, it had interior lighting that ILM found difficult to work with. ILM never expected to work with the refit Enterprise model again after Star Trek III; to their chagrin, they had to get it out of storage and clean it up for Star Trek IV.
     
  20. Newspaper Taxi

    Newspaper Taxi Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Newspaper Taxi
    I think that one major difference between TOS and TNG was that TOS was squarely built on the backs of Kirk, McCoy, and Spock. Occasionally when they needed somebody else they'd get one of the other minor characters to talk or do something. Uhuru opened hailing channels and Chekov was the Russian guy.

    TNG, on the other hand, was an ensemble show, with Picard at the center of the character relationships. And unlike Voyager, where we were told that the crew was a familly, they really felt like a familly in TNG. The last time we see them in All Good Things is sitting around a table playing a friendly game of poker. I never really believed I saw this chemistry in the movies. They were all stiff and distant from each other.

    But when the movies came around, they decided that the 'magic' of TNG was the intereactions between Picard and Data. Yes, yes, the Picard and Data show. I understand that you can only focus on so many characters in the span of a movie, but they could have said, "Okay, let's give Troi and Geordi a bigger part in this one," and then in the next one have Worf or Riker close to the top. That way it wouldn't be the Picard and Data show, it would be the TNG Ensemble, where the various characters have relationships between each other. (Freindly; cordial, lovers, whatever.)

    Maybe the polling and testing audiences weren't famillar with who Troi and Riker and LeVar Burton were, but if they wrote a decent enough script they could inspire people to care about them.