Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Lance, Feb 19, 2013.
I agree that "Nemesis" looks great.
I don't think it was a mistake.
Imagine if it had been a success - they had to try.
I dislike Generations of course because they killed Kirk (lamely).
I thought INS to be cliche ridden with the kid and his pet thing. I can't remember. I mostly like Data but hate it when he goes OTT and thought him most unfunny.
There wasn't that much wrong with FC or NEM IMO. Maybe NEM had too much Romulan politics for the casual viewer but I was able to pick it up.
I think timing has a lot to do with it. If the movies came out now I think they would be better received.
And look at the Transformer and Avenger movies. They're pretty much rubbish, just with great special effects but are massive hits at the box office. Would anyone say either of these movies changed their lives? All of the Star Trek movies are better than these IMO even the worst ones.
Well they had to give it a go because it made sense from a business POV. The salarys of the actors would go through the roof if they renegotiated another 5 or 6 year contract. TNG started with almost 30 million viewers and finished with over 30 million viewers, if they could get 35 million people into the cinema (or 17.5million people see it twice!) they would make nearly $150 million in 1994 money!
In the end 18 million tickets where sold for Generations and 21 million sold for First Contact. (Insurrection 15m, Nemesis.... 7m) so apart from Nemesis it worked out ok for Paramount.
No. Sadly, however, The Next Generation's elevation to the silver screen was, by and large, poorly executed. So, in principle, TNG's promotion was a sound next step, but, in practice, turned out to be more failure than success. C'est la vie.
Samething goes for Enterprise. The premise of a prequel and temporal cold-war in and of themselves weren't bad ways to go. The executions of those ideas, however were not good.
Ultimately the mishandling of The Next Gen's big screen adventures and Enterprise's small screen exploits proved detrimental to the franchise as a whole. I believe They failed because of "attitude." An attitude of laziness and self-conscious disbelief in what they were doing which led to a collapse in the internal structural integrity of what Star Trek is, was and should be - that's were it all went wrong (by my estimation).
Even after saying that though, If I were to go back in time and had the power ... would I greenlight TNG going big and the creation of Enterprise? Yes, I would - because in both cases they were sound moves and could/should have come up aces.
In fact, I would say they beat the odds by failing. No series, either film or television, has ever enjoyed more good will and mass affection then these two projects wherein a lot was expected, too little was ultimately delivered, but much was forgiven ... making 2009's rebirth possible.
So, bigger picture, the journey from there to here hasn't been so bad and, come hell or high water, the company of "Star Trek" devotees has made it all a fan-bloody-tastic experience. No regrets. Salute!
I think TNG movie made sense. TOS cast were aging, and there's a point where action sequences don't work anymore. There's a reason Sean Connery is not playing James Bond anymore. They needed a new movie cast. The problem was execution. Picard was never really that action based character. All of a sudden, Ricker stopped going on away missions, and Picard did that. In all honestly, Riker and Worf should have been the ones doing the action sequence, and Picard as the general planning the mission on the ship.
It was not a mistake to make movies, it was for other reasons they didn't came out very good. One of them it was, after 7 seasons of TNG and some more of DS9, it was impossible for the producers to shake the tv assembly-line, mass-production mindset off.
Moving them to the cinema wasn't the bad idea. Making the films so godawful formulaic was
I absolutely agree. TNG was a great show, but I felt it never worked in movies - I also felt Generations was the best one, despite its flaws, like 'Mr. Tricorder' bit, because it is the only one where the TNG characters still seemed in role from the TV Series - example: in FC and Ins, Picard suddenly became an "action" captain, who bucked orders to do what HE wanted, which is very different from the Picard we knew in the series, and never rung as "authentic" to me ... I tend to ignore these movies, and focus on the televised material...
Absolutely! This was my biggest peeve with these movies, the component that made them feel to me like the people were all out of character - I also never pictured Worf from the TV show threatening to kill Picard where he stands, "if he was any other man"
But there are serveral episodes in which Picards does the Action Jackson. The one with the terrorists on board, during the cleansing of the Enterprise, for example.
On a side note: the first drafts of FC had Riker to be on board the Enterprise and Picard doing the refitting on the planet.
^ 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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
I'm still amazed that Michael Piller wrote something like "Insurrection", especially given the great work he did for the tv series.
One of the most fatal errors that Star Trek has done for the movie series is exactly that (both TOS and TNG).
...ah, perhaps thats why the movie felt like a tv episode...
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.
Separate names with a comma.