Escape pods!
Kirk orders the ship evacuated after it has lost all ability to fight and life support is failing. Some crew survives.
Uhura, Chekov and Sulu are killed during the battle in heroic fashion and Kirk goes down with the ship.
Maurice Hurley's unused Generations script?
- Thread starter Superman
- Start date
Escape pods!
Kirk orders the ship evacuated after it has lost all ability to fight and life support is failing. Some crew survives.
Uhura, Chekov and Sulu are killed during the battle in heroic fashion and Kirk goes down with the ship.
in 1986 TNG was set one fucking century away from TOS explicitly and intentionally to NOT HAVE the two crews interact. Roddenberry himself declared Kirk dead.
Unfortunately TNG made just enough success to get itself a theatrical movie, but not enough to be allowed to star in it alone. But because of the little fact it is practically and essentially a different sci-fi series that happens to be called Star Trek, the only way was through the use of a shitty script. And by shitty I mean literally shit. As in, "the more you mess with it, the more it stinks". That's how I see these ideas about Holo-Kirk meets Picard, Narendra-Kirk meets Picard and Kirk-falls-from-a-bridge meets Picard.
Unfortunately TNG made just enough success to get itself a theatrical movie, but not enough to be allowed to star in it alone. But because of the little fact it is practically and essentially a different sci-fi series that happens to be called Star Trek, the only way was through the use of a shitty script. And by shitty I mean literally shit. As in, "the more you mess with it, the more it stinks". That's how I see these ideas about Holo-Kirk meets Picard, Narendra-Kirk meets Picard and Kirk-falls-from-a-bridge meets Picard.
See, this is the bit that I can never fathom. The Next Generation was *massive* at this time. It was the tentpole of the franchise, it was the media darling, everybody loved it. I'm not overstating things there, it was absolutely the point where Star Trek had the most mainstream popularity, and all of that was down to TNG. I think they could have *totally* held their own in a movie. Audiences would have 'got' it.
And yet, the studio execs chickened out: they told the production team, "Can't we have a crossover with the old crew, just to provide the cinema audience who might not have watched much TNG on television with a bridge to accepting the new guys?". So we got forced into this situation where the writers were presented with an unhelpful 'Fait Accompli' (being told "Your story will be, 'The Generations Meet'..."), that they then had to go off and somehow work a story around it.
It's little surprise that the finished product stinks.
^ That's easy: International markets. Nobody knew who Picard was outside the USA. It would hurt the boxoffice not to have Shatner (and Nimoy and Kelley, who they tried to have).
JJ's reboot is also TOS-based, not TNG.
Looking back, TNG was always the poor man's Trek. When it was time to make a movie, it showed.
JJ's reboot is also TOS-based, not TNG.
Looking back, TNG was always the poor man's Trek. When it was time to make a movie, it showed.
The original cast films didn't do much business in international markets.
For example Star trek 6 earned 77% of it's total box office in the US.
Generations earned 64% in America and First contact got 63% of its box office in the us so the TNG movies actually did a better % of their business oversees than the TOS movies.
TNG was pretty much as big as trek ever got on television and First Contact was a great example of what they could do on their own. The film had an excellent box office take and great reviews. Anyone is welcome to their own personal opinion of it but TNG stood on its own on TV and 3 of the 4 films held their own at the box office.
I'm pretty sure TNG was airing around the world at the time.
TNG only began to be aired in French in 1996, after Generations and First Contact, so Francophones who didn't watch English television met Picard for the first time with the movies.
It would be interesting to read that script, but I'm not crazy about Hurley's idea, and I'm certainly not crazy about GEN. What I always thought they should have done was something along the lines of "Relics." I haven't fleshed out what it would be, but I never bought the Nexus as a plot device as it was simply too outlandish for me, and of course it always made me wonder why we had never heard of it. It sounds like it's on a trajectory like a comet (every 40 years, I think Data reports, yet they call it "an energy ribbon" as though they know nothing about it), but the whole thing was far too contrived for me regardless of whether we had heard of it or not. Something that followed "Relics" without outright ripping it off, and still provided eye candy, I think would have been the clear and obvious way to go in getting Kirk into the 24th century.
I would have enjoyed a story a bit like 'Federation', where the Original Series crew is grappling with an adversary in the 23rd Century, and Picard and friends were grappling with the same or similar (an evolution or return of) adversary in the 24th century, and the 'solution' to the crisis in both eras is to bring the crews together to fight the adversary.
In fact thinking about it I think I basically wanted 'Yesterday's Enterprise' but with the Enterprise A instead of the Enterprise C!
All that I can recall, is that Kirk would've been a holographic simulation, whose advice is sought when the Enterprise-D encounters the same problem the original crew had a century before. The first ten minutes being like Generations, set on an earlier ship and then jumping ahead to the 24th Century. Only the two crews don't meet, and Kirk talking to Picard qualifies as less than, because of the holodeck.
I'll guess it would've been much like the negative reaction to "These are the Voyages..." - important character death, a whole cast reduced in stature because they're not the story focus - but happening earlier. Kirk's death was a fixed element. Coming back to pass the baton, was Paramount's idea wasn't it? And only doing so, if - to make it memorable - he could die, would be Bill Shatner's condition I think. Whichever script had been arrived at, the demands on it, lead to what we got.
I would be very surprised if Moore & Braga's script wasn't the better option. Although, personally speaking, I've always been struck that not basing a crossover on "Yesterday's Enterprise" was the big mistake. Star Trek: The Motion Picture boils down to an elaborate retread of "The Changeling", so it only depends on how you dress it up and stretch the premise to involve a different set of characters put into that situation.
After the happy, heading off into the sunset ending of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, I'm not so sure the Original Cast would want in on a downer like sacrificing themselves and their ship, just to save TNG. Maybe it could've been reduced down to just Kirk, as required... with Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Chekov surviving. But again, it comes down to only one of their number ultimately being essential to the plot. So the two crews script again gets reduced down to TNG, Kirk and whoever from TOS didn't turn it down. Some films have two many characters to service, but succeed in making each person's involvement memorable. So I simply don't know. It's not like they didn't spend enough time on creating a script for Generations. It was going on the whole time Season 7 was. So a year or more to ensure whoever's concessions were met with something to make it worthwhile. Maybe there was nothing that could've turned Generations into the film which satisfied fans of both series. Let alone all the actors we'd have liked appear to fulfil the crossover promise.
I'll guess it would've been much like the negative reaction to "These are the Voyages..." - important character death, a whole cast reduced in stature because they're not the story focus - but happening earlier. Kirk's death was a fixed element. Coming back to pass the baton, was Paramount's idea wasn't it? And only doing so, if - to make it memorable - he could die, would be Bill Shatner's condition I think. Whichever script had been arrived at, the demands on it, lead to what we got.
I would be very surprised if Moore & Braga's script wasn't the better option. Although, personally speaking, I've always been struck that not basing a crossover on "Yesterday's Enterprise" was the big mistake. Star Trek: The Motion Picture boils down to an elaborate retread of "The Changeling", so it only depends on how you dress it up and stretch the premise to involve a different set of characters put into that situation.
After the happy, heading off into the sunset ending of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, I'm not so sure the Original Cast would want in on a downer like sacrificing themselves and their ship, just to save TNG. Maybe it could've been reduced down to just Kirk, as required... with Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, Chekov surviving. But again, it comes down to only one of their number ultimately being essential to the plot. So the two crews script again gets reduced down to TNG, Kirk and whoever from TOS didn't turn it down. Some films have two many characters to service, but succeed in making each person's involvement memorable. So I simply don't know. It's not like they didn't spend enough time on creating a script for Generations. It was going on the whole time Season 7 was. So a year or more to ensure whoever's concessions were met with something to make it worthwhile. Maybe there was nothing that could've turned Generations into the film which satisfied fans of both series. Let alone all the actors we'd have liked appear to fulfil the crossover promise.
Last edited:
Its funny that I think that aspects of Day of the Doctor plot from Doctor Who could have worked interestingly well with Generations. The Enterprise D is thrown back in time to a critical point in Federation history (perhaps initially making some small impact that they realize has affected the timeline) where a year after the Khitomer conference a planned invasion by the Romulans is made public.
A discovery that would destroy the last vestiges of the alliance with the Klingon Empire, make them bitter enemies, and shift the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. An incident that was further fueled by James T. Kirk with his efforts to uncover the plot more significantly his sacrificial death in ensuring the truth was brought to light.
Thus the Enterprise and Picard specifically are left with the choice of disrupting the timeline (potentially figuring out that without this event the Klingons and Romulans reform/reforge their alliance and devastate the Federation) or letting one of the greatest heroes in the history of the Starfleet die. When the crew does encounter Kirk, cue a heavy scene of the two captains discussing that very point, with interestingly enough Kirk actually accepting his role in history and Picard reluctant to let him do it.
Essentially one could call back to two of the series' best with this, Kirk subtly evoking the tough decision he made in the City on the Edge of Forever regarding Edith Keeler, and Picard struggling to come to terms with letting a great officer go to their doom like his alternate self did with Tasha in Yesterday's Enterprise.
In the end as Kirk is ready to sacrifice his life, we learn that the Enterprise D crew figured out a way (in some risky fashion to Picard perhaps) to get him and take him back to the 24th century while still exposing the Romulan plot and making it appear that he died in the process. Thus the timeline is preserved, while keeping Kirk alive. When he questions Picard about this, Jean-Luc can only smile and say that he once learned something from a certain first officer about how there are always possibilities.
The cowboy Captain Kirk who had so often cheated death finally ready to accept it, yet saved by the reserved Captain Picard going forward with the in some ways crazy, foolish, gambit in order to get around the no win scenario.
Couldn't have been worse than Generations at least.
A discovery that would destroy the last vestiges of the alliance with the Klingon Empire, make them bitter enemies, and shift the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. An incident that was further fueled by James T. Kirk with his efforts to uncover the plot more significantly his sacrificial death in ensuring the truth was brought to light.
Thus the Enterprise and Picard specifically are left with the choice of disrupting the timeline (potentially figuring out that without this event the Klingons and Romulans reform/reforge their alliance and devastate the Federation) or letting one of the greatest heroes in the history of the Starfleet die. When the crew does encounter Kirk, cue a heavy scene of the two captains discussing that very point, with interestingly enough Kirk actually accepting his role in history and Picard reluctant to let him do it.
Essentially one could call back to two of the series' best with this, Kirk subtly evoking the tough decision he made in the City on the Edge of Forever regarding Edith Keeler, and Picard struggling to come to terms with letting a great officer go to their doom like his alternate self did with Tasha in Yesterday's Enterprise.
In the end as Kirk is ready to sacrifice his life, we learn that the Enterprise D crew figured out a way (in some risky fashion to Picard perhaps) to get him and take him back to the 24th century while still exposing the Romulan plot and making it appear that he died in the process. Thus the timeline is preserved, while keeping Kirk alive. When he questions Picard about this, Jean-Luc can only smile and say that he once learned something from a certain first officer about how there are always possibilities.
The cowboy Captain Kirk who had so often cheated death finally ready to accept it, yet saved by the reserved Captain Picard going forward with the in some ways crazy, foolish, gambit in order to get around the no win scenario.
Couldn't have been worse than Generations at least.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
^^^ Now I want to Photoshop a "Day of the Captains" poster. 
Huh, I spent part of my Childhood in Germany and remember seeing TNG, DS9 and Voyager at the same time on local TV.
According to Wikipedia TNG retitled "Star Trek: The Next Century" started airing in Germany on 7. September 1990. That's still a three year gap, but before TUC was released or I was born.
And what I know TNG was and still is popular in the British Islands, Germany and Australia.
So plenty of people outside the US knew who Picard was. In fact I remember him being more popular than Kirk among some people, due to Kirk being perceived as too "stereotypically American" (that's not my opinion, I don't like him for being a sleazebag, but my sister always cites that as the reason for disliking him)
Why exactly is Kirk a "sleazebag"?
^ I really wanted to make clear that I don't dislike Kirk for being "too American", that was my main point and I didn't want to write redneck or bogan for the 10th time.
In general I find it difficult to describe why I dislike something, because I don't dwell on it. I rather gush about things I like than bash things I dislike. Sleazebag was in hindsight a bad choice of word. However Womanizing is sleazy in my opinion however and he has a sleazy smile.
I don't quite know how to call him. He is not somebody if I met him I would like very much. Yet I can't exactly say I would look down on him either if he was real because he did plenty of heroic things.
But....he's too quick with the phaser, he gets into fist fights, the way he talks, the way he moves, his womanizing and calling his subordinates by nick-names. Not very admirable characteristics.
I think the problem I have with him is that he is, to some extend the archetype of the Military Maverick, which is not a character type I like. I don't watch action movies (literally I don't), I don't like war or military literature. I hate Westerns. He's not the type of character I'm interested in. He's the standard, posturing male, white protagonist.
I think I dislike him for being old-fashioned really.
In general I find it difficult to describe why I dislike something, because I don't dwell on it. I rather gush about things I like than bash things I dislike. Sleazebag was in hindsight a bad choice of word. However Womanizing is sleazy in my opinion however and he has a sleazy smile.
I don't quite know how to call him. He is not somebody if I met him I would like very much. Yet I can't exactly say I would look down on him either if he was real because he did plenty of heroic things.
But....he's too quick with the phaser, he gets into fist fights, the way he talks, the way he moves, his womanizing and calling his subordinates by nick-names. Not very admirable characteristics.
I think the problem I have with him is that he is, to some extend the archetype of the Military Maverick, which is not a character type I like. I don't watch action movies (literally I don't), I don't like war or military literature. I hate Westerns. He's not the type of character I'm interested in. He's the standard, posturing male, white protagonist.
I think I dislike him for being old-fashioned really.
I think TNG is better because Riker is a much better sleazebag. Poor Troi.
And the 24th century shows are popular in Australia with the people I know. But thats more on syndication than on first run. Because in my memory TNG was taken off mainstream TV very quickly in its first run.
Of course its been shown on cable for years on end.
Or maybe more like "Cause and Effect." Enterprise A gets thrown forward in time like the Bozeman and arrives in the middle of some situation involving the Enterprise D. Both crews must work together ans solve the crisis before the Enterprise A can be returned to the proper timeline. No history changing, no saving the timeline. No ignoring "Yesterday's Enterprise."