TOS vs. TNG - adaptability to the big screen

[Vger23]

On some level the movies all have to stand apart from the TV shows, and I find that fine and acceptable (after all, how do you appeal to the broad audience of movie-goers if you're tied into a television continuity they may never even have seen?), and Generations does seem to understand that it needed to be understandable to audiences moving directly to it from The Undiscovered Country, hence bridging the gap with the prologue on the Enterprise-B was a sound move. But, well, Treks II - VII have that narrative link, kind of, that one might expect from movie sequels, a cinematic, theatrical progression; but VIII, IX and X are basically all stand-alone stories. This coming from The Next Generation crew, which (on TV) had largely been praised for the way they hadn't been afraid to tackle character arcs and grow continuity across multiple episodes and seasons. The TNG movies feel risk-adverse. A little bit like how Voyager and Enterprise each felt increasingly risk adverse.

I agree with your earlier premise that the TOS movies really broke from the standard format, which made them feel far more like big, special events. I mean, for two of the six films, the crew is not even technically in Starfleet.

TMP never could have been a TOS episode, as it was largely built around the premise of the main characters rediscovering themselves and their relationships after significant time apart.

TWOK was all about consequences, death and mid-life...something the original show could never have done.

TSFS and TVH were completely out of the standard format.

It's really only the last two films that could have been done in the television format as episodes.

The TNG films were exactly the opposite. Maybe an argument could be made for GEN being different because the Enterprise gets destroyed and Shatner guest stars....but I think even that is a stretch, given that we had seen crossovers with the TOS characters already. For the most part, any of the TNG films could have been episodes...and that's exactly how they all felt.

 

[Lance]

I agree with your earlier premise that the TOS movies really broke from the standard format, which made them feel far more like big, special events. I mean, for two of the six films, the crew is not even technically in Starfleet.

TMP never could have been a TOS episode, as it was largely built around the premise of the main characters rediscovering themselves and their relationships after significant time apart.

TWOK was all about consequences, death and mid-life...something the original show could never have done.

TSFS and TVH were completely out of the standard format.

It's really only the last two films that could have been done in the television format as episodes.

The TNG films were exactly the opposite. Maybe an argument could be made for GEN being different because the Enterprise gets destroyed and Shatner guest stars....but I think even that is a stretch, given that we had seen crossovers with the TOS characters already. For the most part, any of the TNG films could have been episodes...and that's exactly how they all felt.

Yeah, it's like the difference between seeing a movie as an opportunity to expand the universe, versus that kind of, happy-to-coast-along-episode-by-episode approach.

And like I say, the irony is that the respective TV shows were the opposite. TOS is mostly episodic, rarely if ever revisiting a past episode. The characters do grow across the three seasons, but in mostly static, subtle ways. The movies, even beginning with The Motion Picture, took an approach that they had a remit to take these characters and this universe into new territory.

TNG, as a series, was not quite as static as people often misremember. One of its biggest strengths over the Original Series was that it was not afraid to revisit characters, situations, expand the fictional universe meaningfully. TNG may not have had season long story arcs as we understand them today, but it did do arc plotting, and was praised for it at the time. TNG always felt like it didn't have a ceiling on introducing new concepts, or leaving the characters changed by their experiences (whether it be Picard being affected by assimilation, or the Klingon saga which DS9 then continued, etc etc). The movies, in total contrast to TOS, actually seemed to be less ambitious than the TV show. You never quite feel that anything done by the TNG movies will truly 'stick', because nothing ever really does.

 

[Vger23]

Yeah, it's like the difference between seeing a movie as an opportunity to expand the universe, versus that kind of, happy-to-coast-along-episode-by-episode approach.

And like I say, the irony is that the respective TV shows were the opposite. TOS is mostly episodic, rarely if ever revisiting a past episode. The characters do grow across the three seasons, but in mostly static, subtle ways. The movies, even beginning with The Motion Picture, took an approach that they had a remit to take these characters and this universe into new territory.

TNG, as a series, was not quite as static as people often misremember. One of its biggest strengths over the Original Series was that it was not afraid to revisit characters, situations, expand the fictional universe meaningfully. TNG may not have had season long story arcs as we understand them today, but it did do arc plotting, and was praised for it at the time. TNG always felt like it didn't have a ceiling on introducing new concepts, or leaving the characters changed by their experiences (whether it be Picard being affected by assimilation, or the Klingon saga which DS9 then continued, etc etc). The movies, in total contrast to TOS, actually seemed to be less ambitious than the TV show. You never quite feel that anything done by the TNG movies will truly 'stick', because nothing ever really does.

Good points.

I think part of this was that the TNG movies were also FAR more self-conscious about "reaching general audiences" and each one felt like it was specifically geared to scream "Don't worry, you don't have to know Star Trek to come see this movie!!"

 

[suarezguy]

TOS works in movies because they decided to take the strengths of the TV show, but go one better, go larger, go deeper into the characters, tell stories across multiple movies.

Again, they kind of had to have an ongoing multi-film story what with Spock having been killed off but the fans demanding that he be brought back. But Bennett then being willing to have the crew go rogue and destroy the Enterprise, resolve a cliffhanger while setting up another one was a big, bold risk that did make III and the film series overall feel more significant.

 

[drt]

I think part of this was that the TNG movies were also FAR more self-conscious about "reaching general audiences" and each one felt like it was specifically geared to scream "Don't worry, you don't have to know Star Trek to come see this movie!!"

I guess it helped that TOS had the advantage of being a pop culture phenomenon in the 70s, so most of the casual audience had a basic idea of the characters and the setting.

 

[Vger23]

I guess it helped that TOS had the advantage of being a pop culture phenomenon in the 70s, so most of the casual audience had a basic idea of the characters and the setting.

While I agree that TNG was not the phenomenon TOS was, I still think the studio underestimated the popularity of the characters and settings for the TNG films....t

 

[drt]

While I agree that TNG was not the phenomenon TOS was, I still think the studio underestimated the popularity of the characters and settings for the TNG films....t

I think if it was just TNG in isolation it might have worked better, but for the latter TNG movies, DS9 and VOY were running concurrently. There were probably concerns that general audience might infer you had to be watching the TV shows to know what was going on with the movies.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

While I agree that TNG was not the phenomenon TOS was, I still think the studio underestimated the popularity of the characters and settings for the TNG films.

I think we as fans can overestimate the popularity of TNG. The original series had been a network show for three years and in syndication across the country for 10 by the time they had a movie. TNG had been in first-run syndication for seven, and didn't have a whole lot of pop culture cache with the general public. It got nominated for a Best Drama Series Emmy in its last season, but that seemed to be more of a general appreciation nomination than anything else.

So while it was widely appreciated within the science fiction community, the mainstream American public wasn't too conscious of it.

 

[drt]

I think we as fans can overestimate the popularity of TNG. The original series had been a network show for three years and in syndication across the country for 10 by the time they had a movie. TNG had been in first-run syndication for seven, and didn't have a whole lot of pop culture cache with the general public. It got nominated for a Best Drama Series Emmy in its last season, but that seemed to be more of a general appreciation nomination than anything else.

So while it was widely appreciated within the science fiction community, the mainstream American public wasn't too conscious of it.

Babylon 5 is an example of a a widely appreciated show in the SF community of which the general public was unaware. For a time, TNG was pretty popular with the general public. There were articles at the time describing how in some markets it was more watched than network TV shows scheduled opposite of it (I believe some affiliates even showed it in place of actual network programming), Patrick Stewart was considered one of the sexiest guys by TV Guide, etc. For some reason, that popularity was shortlived. Not sure why that was, maybe it was like a lot of TV, people watch and enjoy it when it's originally broadcast, but once that's over there's no real desire to revisit it (or to pay money to see more in a theater). Maybe because TV changed so drastically in the 90s with ever increasing channels offering new programming that people weren't constantly exposed to reruns like TOS in the 70s.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I remember when Generations was about to happen/in production it just seemed so bizarre and jarring that TNG - the 'tv Trek' - was going to link directly with the epic expensive looking original cast 'movie Trek'.. I mean the different aesthetic/feel/look etc.. I know we'd already seen movie stuff like uniforms, ships, 'movie era' Spock/Scotty in TNG (and vague TNG stuff creeping into V via the slightly TNGy sets ..and obviously VI with all kinds of stuff Dorn/epilog)... but an actual crossover film and the idea of the TOS crew and their expensive 'look' and their rich movie history (Vger, Khan, Saavik/David, Genesis, death of spock, Ent destruction, the Reliant/Excelsior, the whales, Yosemite, rainbow warp trails, mushroom spacedock, blue transporter beams, the red uniforms, James Horner, ILM, the bob peak posters, and the recent epic Trek VI) in the TNG 'TV verse' and imagining stuff like 'Admiral' Kirk (who defeated Khan and saved the whales) on the 'holiday inn' bridge of the Ent D and butting heads with Picard in his ready room with the fish tank, Bones in the TNG sickbay with Dr Crusher, Captain Spock meeting Troi, Chekov/Sulu encountering Data/Geordi etc just seemed ..out there.. and kind of implausible.. but at the same time very exciting!

but ultimately in many ways Generations was similar to Highlander: Endgame (which was obviously influenced by STG) the melding/baton passing of the movie-verse and tv series (which had actually already happened in both the Highlander tv series with Conner and TNG - Spock) .. but ending up almost like an extended tv episode ..maybe the idea of it happening best left to just the idea of it happening

 

[Thomas Elliot]

Just looking at your avatar Khan 2.0, there's a novelty of TOS movies that there isn't in TNG movies. It's the original cast of TOS, aged a bit, in modern, newly designed uniforms, new everything.

TNG movies didn't really have that. The crew is wearing the same uniforms that we saw in DS9. It's the same ship but with different lighting. We get to FC and they change the uniforms...but for the worst. It's just exciting to see the contrast between TOS and the TOS movies.
TNG movies just make you want to watch the TNG show instead.

 

[Lance]

I think we as fans can overestimate the popularity of TNG. The original series had been a network show for three years and in syndication across the country for 10 by the time they had a movie. TNG had been in first-run syndication for seven, and didn't have a whole lot of pop culture cache with the general public. It got nominated for a Best Drama Series Emmy in its last season, but that seemed to be more of a general appreciation nomination than anything else.

So while it was widely appreciated within the science fiction community, the mainstream American public wasn't too conscious of it.

While I do think the end of TNG kind of heralded the peak of Trek's pop-cultural cache as a franchise, I also agree, and based on personal experience, that the 'general public' were not as versed in TNG as many like to think. TOS was kind of a known quantity, a safe pair of hands at the helm as it were, but TNG was always somewhat more niche in the circles I travelled in. Also, I'm in the international arena, and some of us weren't even totally 'caught up' in our terrestial broadcasts to where America was at the time, so when Generations came along, and it was structured like all of these characters already mean something to the audience, well, I witnessed many people who scratched their heads at that, as they'd seen very little of TNG on television. There's something very reliable about the TOS archtypes that cross generational and even cultural boundaries in a way that the TNG characters don't. It's hard to define. But, it's like, Kirk and his crew are the ultimate 'plug and play', because who they are and how they interact is ingrained in us all culturally. We intrinsically 'get' them. I don't believe the TNG crew has that. I don't think they had that on TV, either. They're much more 'abstract'? I don't know if that's the word I'm looking for. You kind of have to watch them and watch them and really get invested in them and who they are in order to fully relate to them. Kirk's crew feel more tangible. I don't think a Star Trek crew since has quite gotten the knack of that. They're the UR-Trek. That's a strength.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Also, I'm in the international arena, and some of us weren't even totally 'caught up' in our terrestial broadcasts to where America was at the time, so when Generations came along, and it was structured like all of these characters already mean something to the audience, well, I witnessed many people who scratched their heads at that, as they'd seen very little of TNG on television.

Excellent point. I spent a semester abroad in the spring of 1992, when TNG was in its 5th season (I believe that "Unification" was the last episode I saw before I left the U.S.), and England was still a year or two behind the U.S. in the TNG episodes they were airing at that point.

So while I think that the general public was probably aware that there was a TV show called Star Trek: The Next Generation, most of them would be hard pressed to name any of the characters outside of "the bald guy" or "the Klingon." And Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Ron Moore, David Carson, and others who'd worked on the TNG show might've forgotten that, as steeped in the characters as they were by that point, having been working on TNG for years. Introducing everyone on the holoodeck sailing ship might have only further confused people who weren't up to speed on the Enterprise-D crew.

There's something very reliable about the TOS archtypes that cross generational and even cultural boundaries in a way that the TNG characters don't. It's hard to define. But, it's like, Kirk and his crew are the ultimate 'plug and play', because who they are and how they interact is ingrained in us all culturally. We intrinsically 'get' them. I don't believe the TNG crew has that. I don't think they had that on TV, either.

I think that's partly because the TOS crew were the originals and therefore the archetypes, and partly because TNG was conceived as more of an ensemble show than TOS was, with most characters behind the Captain being of equal importance. So TNG is a harder show to get an immediate grasp on than TOS' "Here's the heroic Captain, here's the Vulcan science officer, here's the sarcastic doctor, let's go!" And also, TOS had a definite status quo, whereas the TNG characters changed & evolved slightly over the years. "Oh, this is the season where Geordi becomes the Engineer and Worf becomes Security Chief and Dr. Crusher is gone, but her son Wesley is still aboard for some reason! Right..."

 

[Lance]

Excellent point. I spent a semester abroad in the spring of 1992, when TNG was in its 5th season (I believe that "Unification" was the last episode I saw before I left the U.S.), and England was still a year or two behind the U.S. in the TNG episodes they were airing at that point. So while I think that the general public was probably aware that there was a TV show called Star Trek: The Next Generation, most of them would be hard pressed to name any of the characters outside of "the bald guy" or "the Klingon." And Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Ron Moore, David Carson, and others who'd worked on the TNG show might've forgotten that, as steeped in the characters as they were by that point, having been working on TNG for years.

Slightly OT, but as an aside, I remember my dad knew someone who knew someone who was from America, and through them once managed to get me a couple of the latest episodes on tape, recorded off-air from America. My memory was that I couldn't actually play them on my PAL tape player, the picture was unwatchable, but the audio still kinda played (at the wrong pitch), so I just kinda closed my eyes and listened to them like they were a radio show. Fun times.

 

[JesterFace]

While TNG is my favourite TV series, I don't like any of the movies they made.

TOS movies are better and also classics.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Despite how horrible I thought those TNG movies were, but there's no doubt the money was spent on the production design, those movies looked slick, something TOS movies lacked since Star Trek: The Motion Picture. There appeared to be a tighter budget for TOS than TNG, it's too bad TNG stories weren't better.

 

[drt]

Despite how horrible I thought those TNG movies were, but there's no doubt the money was spent on the production design, those movies looked slick, something TOS movies lacked since Star Trek: The Motion Picture. There appeared to be a tighter budget for TOS than TNG, it's too bad TNG stories weren't better.

The budgets for TVH through GEN were around $60m in today's dollars, with FC getting bumped up to around $75m and INS $92m. However, the TOS movies spent about a third of their budgets just for Shatner and Nimoy's salaries, so there was significantly less to spend elsewhere.

 

[Lance]

Despite how horrible I thought those TNG movies were, but there's no doubt the money was spent on the production design, those movies looked slick, something TOS movies lacked since Star Trek: The Motion Picture. There appeared to be a tighter budget for TOS than TNG, it's too bad TNG stories weren't better.

The budgets for TVH through GEN were around $60m in today's dollars, with FC getting bumped up to around $75m and INS $92m. However, the TOS movies spent about a third of their budgets just for Shatner and Nimoy's salaries, so there was significantly less to spend elsewhere.

Budgets are curious.

I recollect that Star Trek: Nemesis only happened at all because Patrick Stewart, whose star had risen thanks to the X-Men franchise, agreed to take a significant pay cut so that the production could remain under budget. Although his take away at the end was still more than he'd received in the entire seven seasons of the TV show combined.

Insurrection had a higher budget than First Contact by about $20mil, but much of that was spent on location shooting in beautiful Northern California. According to Michael Piller's book about the making of the movie, Frakes took advantage of this by shooting some gorgeous scenery during the exodus from the village... but during test screenings the studio suits decided it slowed down the movie too much, so it all got cut out. So, that was basically money down the drain. My problem with the final movie is that what we have left looks very cheap, even though the movie had a higher budget than any of it's predecessors. Despite being built out on location, the village mostly looks like the standard studio bound 'village set' used throughout all the NextTrek TV shows (you know the one I mean), while CGI was in its infancy, so the effects sequences all look somewhat primitive. It wasn't a cheap movie, but it looks cheap.

 

[suarezguy]

I thought the location scenery in the episode "Attached" looked and seemed a lot more vast, beautiful, impressive than in either Generations or Insurrection (perhaps influenced by with an episode having lower expectations but I don't think just that).

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s7/7x08/attached152.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s7/7x08/attached161.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s7/7x08/attached165.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s7/7x08/attached172.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s7/7x08/attached237.jpg
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s7/7x08/attached271.jpg

Just one example of how TNG had already done so much so well that most possible films would seem redundant.

 

[drt]

"Attached" has that same dry, dusty "filmed somewhere in the LA basin" look as the rest of the TNG location work, I think the director just did a better job of making use of it. "Who Watches the Watchers" also did a nice job, even filming at Vasquez Rocks. Part of the problem with Insurrection is the Ba'ku village location was also in the LA area, so the movie really only looked different when they were up in the mountains (holoship and the chase).