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. Andymator

    Andymator Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    But that only makes sense for the couple of scenes where the saucer actually separates.

    The 6 foot model's smooth surface was not unfinished at all, it was the designer's intent. It's details were incredibly fine and intricate. What you're confusing is the more exaggerated features of the 4 foot model for more detail. On TV screens (in the 1990s) the 6 footer's details don't come across as nicely, so the over-the-top 4 footer translates much more clearly. When you make the move to feature film that's no longer the case.


    Yes, this is common knowledge, but it has nothing to do with why the Excelsior model was built. The Excelsior model was built because the script for Star Trek III called for the ship to appear.
     
  2. Lance

    Lance Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Location:
    The Enterprise's Restroom
    There was some beat up from Gene Roddenberry at the time about how the movie producers 'clearly' wanted to replace the Constitution with the Excelsior, but I've always chalked this up as being paranoia on Gene's part. Certainly, Harve Bennett has gone on record as saying it was never his intention, and the subtext in STIII is self-evidently that the Excelsior is supposed to be seen as the brash, bold new Starfleet ship whose overpowering arrogance is toppled by good ol' underdog Enterprise. All the bluster about "The Great Experiment" is just setting up the punchline of it failing to even clear Starbase, and despite Gene's fears it wouldn't surprise me if Bennett always intended for 1701-A to turn up at the end of the next movie, even as he was writing the death of her predecessor.

    The removal of 1701-D, on the other hand, always struck me as a cynical and unnecessary move, a decision made for purely commercial reasons. They wanted to capitalize on having a brand new ship in the next movie (merchandise etc), so 1701-D had to go. Personally, I'd have been perfectly happy to have simply seen it refitted with each new movie ala the TOS Enterprise, but there you go. The bottom line is that it's a dollars and cents business. :)
     
  3. Argus Skyhawk

    Argus Skyhawk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2001
    Location:
    Argus Skyhawk
    I don't think doing stand-alone movies was necessarily a problem, but I admit I would have really preferred to have seen the stories more interconnected like the TOS movies were. If it had been up to me, the ninth movie would have started with the Enterprise emerging in the 24th Century from the time warp they used to return home at the end of First Contact. That way, the movie would not only feel as though it followed directly from the previous one, but they would not have needed to contrive some other reason to bring back Worf. He was already there!

    Would that have made Insurrection better? No, but I still would have liked it.

    I probably would have extended Picard's relationship with Anij into the tenth film as well. It hate it when love interests disappear in a single episode.
     
  4. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    I thought Harve Bennett told DC comics that the plan was to give Kirk and crew the Excelsior, hence that being the case for their entire run of comics between STIII and IV.
     
  5. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    TWOK is really the first part of a trilogy. Taken as a whole, the TWOK/TSFS/TVH trilogy is bolder, grander, more dramatic, and ultimately more satisfying than most individual episodes of TOS. Looking at them that way, we see a symphony that overshadows the faults in each of the individual films.

    Long story short there, the TOS films managed to transcend the limitations of TOS on TV. They took us places far beyond where we'd been before. They freakin' killed off one of the most popular characters in TV history, destroyed the Enterprise, and then brought it all back by the end of TVH.

    Did the TNG films ever manage to do something similar? Nope, not even close. There is certainly no overarching story across even just any two of the four films. As individual films, they play like souped-up versions of TNG two-parters: The Best of Both Worlds, Data's Head, I mean Time's Arrow, Gambit, Unification, etc. In the case of GEN, since it's the torch-passer, arguably it gets to be a souped-up combo of two two-parters, say like Unification plus Redemption, with a dash of Relics, or something.

    And before you say, "But TNG blew up their Enterprise, too," and "They killed off their popular character, too," well, you know that the reply's going to be, "Been there, done that," dontcha.

    Long story short, where the TOS films went far beyond what their show did, like cranking it up from 4 to 11, the TNG films were only like cranking it up from 4 to 5, 6, or maybe all the way to 7 in spots.

    Further, while the TOS films at least managed a sentimental finale at the end of TUC, the TNG films went out with a whimper at the end of NEM. Nothing really artistic going on in the TNG films by comparison. Nothing even worth fighting for after NEM. At least the TOS films had some fight left in 'em after TFF.

    The TNG films play like an empty cash-grab, if you look at it that way, that just got played out.

    When I go back to watch TNG, I'm always going back to the show, never to the films. In the case of TOS, I go back to both.
     
  6. Trek Survivor

    Trek Survivor Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    Nothing to do with the writers, or the moviegoers recognition of other characters, but EVERYTHING to do with Stewart and Spiner's power. They were the most popular characters from the series, and this gave them huge leverage in negotiating their individual contracts when it came to each movie. Both had clauses guaranteeing their characters "arcs" in every film, as well as script input/approval (the latter more for Stewart than Spiner).
     
  7. RAMA

    RAMA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Not really the STNG movies made $455 million. 2 of the 4 were successful outright, 3 of 4 made back their money at the BO, and all 4 probably made a profit after including all sources after BO. FC is normally in people's top 4 ST movies list.

    Having said that, STNG works better on TV. I would rather have seen 9 years of STNG on tv and 2 follow up movies in the theaters. That would have been ideal.

    RAMA
     
  8. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    If you had to kill Kirk and destroy the Enterprise in the same film, then you have him go down with the ship.

    I never understood the logic of doing it any other way.

    I find it funny that none of the TOS characters who appeared in TNG ever made it to the bridge of the Enterprise-D.
     
  9. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    That would have been a distinct improvement, yes. Something that the TOS films didn't do. Kirk's final answer to the Kobayashi Maru, when you can no longer cheat death. Oh, if only.
     
  10. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    Plus, I thought the six-foot Enterprise-D model looked damn spectacular on the big screen.
     
  11. dub

    dub Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Location:
    Location? What is this?
    Dude, you nailed it. I think another reason why TOS movies -- particularly the three you mentioned as a trilogy -- feel like a larger story (than TV) is because so much time had passed before they actually made a TOS movie. Effects improved, styles changed, and the passage of time also provided nostalgia for the audience. Lots of interesting thoughts in this thread. :techman:
     
  12. Trek Survivor

    Trek Survivor Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    Yes agreed, that could've substantially improved things.
     
  13. DalekJim

    DalekJim Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Great Britain
    I uh, strongly disagree. The Voyage Home is OK I guess but it isn't a patch on episodes like The Tholian Web, The Cage, This Side of Paradise or Balance of Terror. I love Wrath of Khan but the following 2 movies are nothing special. I'd much rather watch The Motion Picture of Undiscovered Country, which resemble Star Trek a lot more.

    It's a mess of a movie but I'm oddly fond of Insurrection. It tried to tell an actual science-fiction story unlike the following 2 knuckle-brained films.
     
  14. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    That's, uh, why I was speaking of the trilogy as a whole. And I'm afraid you clipped out the rest of my context, where I mentioned what parts of the other two films especially contribute to the grand story arc and where I acknowledged how the other two after TWOK don't really stand by themselves.

    ---

    On the subject of going down with the ship, at least Kirk's father got to do that in nuTrek.
     
  15. Iamnotspock

    Iamnotspock Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    It's arguably what Generations did at the beginning....
     
  16. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    Unfortunately, the audience had no more emotional connection to the Enterprise-B than they did Veridian III.
     
  17. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
    ok, the TOS movies had a HUGE advantage over the TNG ones-the first four of them came at a time when there was no other competition from Star Trek on TV. If you wanted new Star Trek, you went to see a movie that came out every two-three years.

    The TNG movies came out at a time when the market was saturated with Star Trek. Two of the movies came out when there were TWO DIFFERENT Star Trek series on TV at the same time. And FC was a big hit coming out in that situation, and INS, while a disappointment, wasn't a bomb.

    It's comparing apples and oranges unless you look at TFF and TUC, both of which came out when there was the very popular TNG on TV. And guess what? Neither performed as well as the previous Trek movies that came out before new Trek on TV.
     
  18. Lance

    Lance Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Location:
    The Enterprise's Restroom
    I remember Stewart blamed "franchise fatigue" among the audience for the failure of Nemesis at the box-office. I was working at a movie theater at the time it was released, and a lot of the feedback the customers gave me about it on their way out the door would tally up with that. I remember very few screenings where more than a dozen people were in attendance, and of those most of the people I asked about it seemed to indicate that Star Trek itself (ie, the franchise as a whole, including Enterprise on TV) had just gone flat at the time.
     
  19. RAMA

    RAMA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Imagine Kirk flying through the viewscreen or out of the ceiling window during the crash. Could have been good...I'd love to do that to Shatner sometimes.

    RAMA
     
  20. DarKush

    DarKush Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    To the OP's original question, I would say no. I don't think it was a bad decision. It made a lot of sense to me. At the time of Generations, Star Trek and TNG were riding high and fans wanted more. Where I think mistakes were made were in the execution. I wish there had been something more of an arc for the films, instead of the more stand alone, haphazard way each film seemed to be done. I understand why it was episodic, but I wish there had been some strains established in Generations that would bear fruit by the time of Nemesis.

    I also didn't like trying to change Picard and Data into Kirk and Spock. There was too much aping of the TOS films. With TOS, thankfully they had no one to emulate. But TNG got caught in the losing proposition to recreate the magic of TWOK.

    So I thought the idea to go with TNG movies was a good one. I don't think the execution was as good as it could be. With all that being said, the only movie I didn't like after leaving the theater was Nemesis. And my dislike lessened once I bought it on DVD and watched it again.