TOS vs. TNG - adaptability to the big screen

[Lance]

I think one of the big flaws of the TNG movie run was that we were never given the chance to "miss them" the way we were with TOS.

Also, coming immediately off the back of an almost universally acclaimed Series Finale, where TOS was cancelled with little fanfare and ended without resolution so we were interested to see where the characters go next. As open ended as "All Good Things..." tried to be, it tied up the characters well, and the glimpses of the future within it were also well received. Almost anything following that would struggle, but maybe moreso when the goodwill of "All Good Things..." was still fresh in movie-goers minds. I don't know how long a gap they should have taken, but a gap was needed, to give audiences a chance to enjoy "All Good Things..." and build anticipation for the crew's jump to the big screen. Generations ends up feeling underbaked and anti-climactic as a result of the rush to get it out before the end of the same year the show went off the air, and a certain amount of that fatigue plagued the following movies too.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I don't know how long a gap they should have taken, but a gap was needed, to give audiences a chance to enjoy "All Good Things..." and build anticipation for the crew's jump to the big screen. Generations ends up feeling underbaked and anti-climactic as a result of the rush to get it out before the end of the same year the show went off the air, and a certain amount of that fatigue plagued the following movies too.

I don't think this was ever in the cards, but Paramount could have made another classic cast film in 1994, then debuted the NextGen crew in 1996, either with a crossover film or a solo film. I think that's maybe the most Paramount would have waited to build a "gap" between the end of NextGen and their first movie.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I don't think this was ever in the cards, but Paramount could have made another classic cast film in 1994, then debuted the NextGen crew in 1996, either with a crossover film or a solo film. I think that's maybe the most Paramount would have waited to build a "gap" between the end of NextGen and their first movie.

Star Trek VII: The Ashes of Eden (1994) directed by Shatner!
Star Trek Generations (1996) directed by Nimoy

 

[Beckerjr]

Star Trek VI was pretty clearly designed as a finale for the ToS crew. Might sound a little rude but the cast was clearly starting to show their advanced age by then and making it look odd on screen that these characters are still "gallivanting" around the galaxy on new adventures.

 

[Lord Garth]

Star Trek VI was pretty clearly designed as a finale for the ToS crew. Might sound a little rude but the cast was clearly starting to show their advanced age by then and making it look odd on screen that these characters are still "gallivanting" around the galaxy on new adventures.

I didn't think they looked that old in 1991. DeForest Kelly and James Doohan looked old. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy still looked upper-middle-aged. I'd argue they still could've pulled it off up through the mid-'90s, but then it would've been time to stop. If we're talking about age alone. But it's not all we're talking about, so TUC was the best exit cue they could've taken.

 

[Lance]

I don't think this was ever in the cards, but Paramount could have made another classic cast film in 1994, then debuted the NextGen crew in 1996, either with a crossover film or a solo film. I think that's maybe the most Paramount would have waited to build a "gap" between the end of NextGen and their first movie.

In a great many ways, FC does feel like a refresh. A while back I did a little 'What If...?' thread on here about if TNG had lasted 3 seasons like TOS then ended, with Best of Both Worlds (both parts) being the series finale. That show ends on an intetesting note, Riker still with four pips having decided what his future is, but not explicitly stating it, Picard back in command but dealing with some kind of PTSD. Hypothetically, the show is off the air, until 1996 when First Contact picks up the story almost seamlessly while still feeling like it takes place many years later. Substitute Worf on the Defiant with Captain Riker, and the 1701-E with her predecessor, maybe suitably refit, and you end up with a situation not dissimilar to the gap between TOS and TMP.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I don't understand why Patrick Stewart couldn't be the Jean-Luc Picard I loved from TNG TV series, but instead be a character which was far from what was already developed. In the films Stewart was Picard in name only.

 

[Beckerjr]

I don't understand why Patrick Stewart couldn't be the Jean-Luc Picard I loved from TNG TV series, but instead be a character which was far from what was already developed. In the films Stewart was Picard in name only.

I don't think its a particularly good movie but the story of Insurrection was straight out of a season of TNG.

 

[Lance]

I don't understand why Patrick Stewart couldn't be the Jean-Luc Picard I loved from TNG TV series, but instead be a character which was far from what was already developed. In the films Stewart was Picard in name only.

I don't think its a particularly good movie but the story of Insurrection was straight out of a season of TNG.

Yes, the story is. But Jean-Luc is not. Which was, I think, @STEPhon IT's point.

 

[Vger23]

I think one of the big flaws of the TNG movie run was that we were never given the chance to "miss them" the way we were with TOS.

Agree. In fact, it's worse than this, as the series was starting to become stale at this point. S7 was largely a stinker graveyard. So not only did we not have a chance to "miss them," but arguably, they had already overstayed the welcome.

 

[Vger23]

I don't think its a particularly good movie but the story of Insurrection was straight out of a season of TNG.

I suppose so. It plays like a crappy, forgettable Season 6 one-hour episode though.

 

[Noname Given]

The main issue was that ALL the TNG films (even 'First Contact') felt like a weekly TV episode, just with a bigger budget. Hell Generations used the majority of the TV series sets redressed and light in a wierd way (I suppose they were trying to be 'more cinematic'.

Hell, since they KNEW they were going directly to the big screen post finale; they should have destroyed the 1701-D at the end of the series so they could start fresh for the films and give the audience more that just another TNG TV episode on the big screen.

IMO - The destruction of the 1701-D in 'Generations' is probably another factor in why 'First Contact' did better at the Box Office - fans wanted to see the new ship/bridge, etc. in action.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I thought the producers didn't use the cast as an assemble the way they did on TV. They tried desperately to fit characters in the TOS tropes and it failed. Picard is not Kirk, and his (Kirk's) anger and emotions tie into the eventual resolution of the character within the story. Data is not Spock, and I felt there was a mis-calculation believing Spiner's character was that popular. What made TNG great was the supporting actors knew who drove the BUS, and they would treat each other evenly while Patrick Stewart did his thing. Brent Spiner was a terrible co-star and I felt his performances and his roles in the films were the biggest disappointment. I never felt that comradery with Stewart and Spiner like I loved with Shatner, Nimoy, and DeKelly. Jonathan Frakes, and Levar Burton were appropriate co-stars to spring board the series and I thought they should've been handled the same way for the movies.

 

[arch101]

GEN felt like a TV movie of the week.

Kor

Except for the expensive-at-the-time saucer crash, Gen feels like a 2-hr ep of the series (I think Ebert even said as much in his review). FC feels like a much more epic experience. Larger in overall scale and with a better story. It was the first Next Gen film that really felt like an event movie.
Which is why it's 2 inferior sequels still feel SO disappointing 2 decades later. What could have been...

 

[Smellmet]

Except for the expensive-at-the-time saucer crash, Gen feels like a 2-hr ep of the series (I think Ebert even said as much in his review). FC feels like a much more epic experience. Larger in overall scale and with a better story. It was the first Next Gen film that really felt like an event movie.
Which is why it's 2 inferior sequels still feel SO disappointing 2 decades later. What could have been...

You see, I feel the opposite. I thought generations looked way more cinematic than FC, which I thought looked really cheap in places.

 

[Lance]

Except for the expensive-at-the-time saucer crash, Gen feels like a 2-hr ep of the series (I think Ebert even said as much in his review). FC feels like a much more epic experience. Larger in overall scale and with a better story. It was the first Next Gen film that really felt like an event movie.
Which is why it's 2 inferior sequels still feel SO disappointing 2 decades later. What could have been...

You see, I feel the opposite. I thought generations looked way more cinematic than FC, which I thought looked really cheap in places.

I've thought both. First Contact is clearly the movie with the most cinematic ambition, but it looks like it has those budget constraints... aside from the space walk sequence, the movie is filmed like a TV episode... criticisms which are true of Insurrection as well... whereas Generations (and Nemesis, whatever else anyone thinks of it) are shitty movie-of-the-week scripts, but are filmed with a cinematic flair, particularly Generations where John Alonzo as director of photography manages to get those old TNG sets looking really moody by use of dynamic light sources. And the location sequences also look sublime, again unlike First Contact and Insurrection which were filmed on location, but look like the standard 'planet exterior' and 'exterior village' sets TNG wheeled out over seven years. There's no dynamism there, no energy, no cinematic flair. In some ways, they epitomise that whole period of late 90s Star Trek, where it became a factory, churning out a product.

 

[Smellmet]

I've thought both. First Contact is clearly the movie with the most cinematic ambition, but it looks like it has those budget constraints... aside from the space walk sequence, the movie is filmed like a TV episode... criticisms which are true of Insurrection as well... whereas Generations (and Nemesis, whatever else anyone thinks of it) are shitty movie-of-the-week scripts, but are filmed with a cinematic flair, particularly Generations where John Alonzo as director of photography manages to get those old TNG sets looking really moody by use of dynamic light sources. And the location sequences also look sublime, again unlike First Contact and Insurrection which were filmed on location, but look like the standard 'planet exterior' and 'exterior village' sets TNG wheeled out over seven years. There's no dynamism there, no energy, no cinematic flair. In some ways, they epitomise that whole period of late 90s Star Trek, where it became a factory, churning out a product.

Absolutely spot-on. My feelings exactly.

 

[Vger23]

Except for the expensive-at-the-time saucer crash, Gen feels like a 2-hr ep of the series (I think Ebert even said as much in his review). FC feels like a much more epic experience. Larger in overall scale and with a better story. It was the first Next Gen film that really felt like an event movie.
Which is why it's 2 inferior sequels still feel SO disappointing 2 decades later. What could have been...

You see, I feel the opposite. I thought generations looked way more cinematic than FC, which I thought looked really cheap in places.

I too felt FC was a smaller-feeling, more static movie, @Smellmet

Also agree that it is less cinematic. At least Generations had the saucer crash, TOS Prologue, and Kirk teaming with Picard to make it an event. I like FC as much as any Trek fan (and it has a better script/story than GEN by far), but it wasn't anything different than a great 2-hour episode.

 

[Smellmet]

I too felt FC was a smaller-feeling, more static movie, @Smellmet

Also agree that it is less cinematic. At least Generations had the saucer crash, TOS Prologue, and Kirk teaming with Picard to make it an event. I like FC as much as any Trek fan (and it has a better script/story than GEN by far), but it wasn't anything different than a great 2-hour episode.

There were elements of it that grated even when I saw it at the cinema - some of the sets, the lighting, even some of the visual effects disappointed me and just felt cheap and TV-like. Generations, despite being inferior in many departments, looked stunning, and still does to my eyes, the FX are better across the board and the overall look of the movie has aged way better than FC & INS in my view.

FC I feel gets a pass with most people because it's the more outwardly entertaining movie - which it is in the main, but boy does it look naff in places. As much as I like the Enterprise E, the interior sets were truly awful and have dated the movie quite badly.

 

[Vger23]

There were elements of it that grated even when I saw it at the cinema - some of the sets, the lighting, even some of the visual effects disappointed me and just felt cheap and TV-like. Generations, despite being inferior in many departments, looked stunning, and still does to my eyes, the FX are better across the board and the overall look of the movie has aged way better than FC & INS in my view.

FC I feel gets a pass with most people because it's the more outwardly entertaining movie - which it is in the main, but boy does it look naff in places. As much as I like the Enterprise E, the interior sets were truly awful and have dated the movie quite badly.

I think GEN is the best-looking Star Trek film (along with TMP) from the pre 2009 era.

I also agree that the interiors of the Enterprise look cheap. The bridge in First Contact is so flatly-lit and looks like a cobbled-together "greatest hits" bridge set from past movies and shows.