That's interesting. I've seen very few people ever argue that Generations is a better film than First Contact. Would you care to elaborate on your reasoning?
Star Trek: Generations at 30
- Thread starter Tallguy
- Start date
It would be one thing if the lighting was done for some type of artistic reason. But it wasn't. It was done because the television sets on the big screen would not hold up under close scrutiny, some sets had deteriorated, and portions of sets had already been moved around from their use on the show (which was why Riker exits the Ready Room into total darkness instead of the bright lights of the bridge.)
1. Because Robert and Renee dying in a fire was just a plot device that was completely forgotten about by the end of the movie.
2. Going back further and arresting Soran before he did anything means that Kirk stays alive, and the Paramount suits didn't want that.
3. As I mentioned in another thread, they absolutely could have changed the story so that they went back before the D was destroyed, as they had already shown the saucer crash they so wanted, and just made a reset button. But they wanted a new ship for the films, so they didn't care about saving the D.
I had that theory too. And still do. But I'm biased because I hate everything they've made since Generations.
And the Malurians as shown in ENT seemed quite technologically advanced 100 years before Nomad wiped them out. That stretches credibility a bit. I always got the impression, based solely on "The Changeling," that the Malurians were just a primitive species that the Federation were studying (like the Mintakans) and were not advanced enough to defend themselves from Nomad destroying their planet. Instead we are shown that they have warp-capable starships even more advanced than what Earth had, not to mention what tech they would have had a century later. It was just another example of ENT name-dropping stuff from TOS without fully understanding the context.
Last edited:
i'm not @Richard S. Ta , but here's mine.
Generations displays some ambition in its willingness to destroy the status quo. The Enterprise is destroyed, potentially scattering the crew. I've described the film's tone as "funereal," and there's a sense of closure to it that "All Good Things..." didn't have. It feels like an ending.
First Contact feels like just another story. The visual bling is different -- new uniforms, a new ship -- but it's a story that wouldn't have been out of place, or done any differently (except for the location shooting), if made five years before. Narratively, it's a tonal mess; you have this serious Borg plot happening alongside a fish-out-of-water comedy on Earth.
I've also never been impressed with Frakes' direction, which I find bland. David Carson made a much more visually interesting and varied film.
The construction blueprints for the Bridge modifications in Generations shows that's not true. The Ready Room set stayed exactly where it was during production on the series: http://archive.frogland.co.uk/Set Blueprints/Enterprise D/Bridge/Bridge 25.png
Fair enough. However, the fact that Riker exits into total darkness was a clear indicator that something had changed and would not look good on the big screen.
It's dark when he exits, but you can still tell that the bridge is out there. You can see the viewscreen. I think it was just more of their attempt to do "cinematic" lighting.
In Generations, it’s still the characters and ship I love from the show. It starts to shift a bit visually in FC in terms of uniforms and then there’s the E which… I just didn’t ever form any attachment to. I think it’s a bland design.
From FC onwards Picard becomes Movie Picard. It’s also a movie where it’s clear people were afraid to give Brent Spiner notes, cause he doubles down on the scenery chewing from GEN.
I think ultimately GEN feels like an event in the way FC doesn’t. Two worlds colliding. Two captains. Two shows. I think FC is fine. It’s hampered by having a workmanlike person in the directors chair visually, but it works as a movie. I just don’t feel it puts anything onscreen that TNG couldn’t do and I don’t think that’s the case with GEN.
Last edited:
I go back & forth amongst Generations' place in the Trek movie hieracrchy. Amingst the TNG films, it is firmly in the middle. First Contact obviously top, Nemesis obviously last.
No way fo I like it as much as the good TOS movies (Khan, tVH, tUC, tSfS), but it is clearly better than tFF. And also clearly better than "Unto Darkness" and S31.
That puts it in the middle with TMP, Insurrection, Star Trek, and Beyond. Ask me on a given day which ine of those I like best, and you will get a different answer.
YMMV, of course.
No way fo I like it as much as the good TOS movies (Khan, tVH, tUC, tSfS), but it is clearly better than tFF. And also clearly better than "Unto Darkness" and S31.
That puts it in the middle with TMP, Insurrection, Star Trek, and Beyond. Ask me on a given day which ine of those I like best, and you will get a different answer.
YMMV, of course.
David Carson's directing definitely helps. He had brought cinematic ideas to the TV screen for TNG, so it's no surprise that he'd use some of the same techniques - minus some pan'n'scan thanks to 2.35:1 big screen aspect ratio - to the big screen. Indeed, having to storyboard scenes in 1.33:1 then fiddle with pan and scan for added horizontal movement on cue, perfectly timed was pretty dang phenomenal back then. So when people say "it feels like a tv episode", I perceive it as a compliment, given how TNG was using big screen techniques at the time. He probably invented one or two along the way as well. TNG often felt like a motion picture event, with several episodes - especially in seasons 2 through 4 - really feeling big. Which was due as much to the scripts going the extra mile.
Dennis McCarthy's score also excels. After 3 years of "frogs farting on a log in a bog" in every episode (save for the weekly teasers, which clearly teased a lot!), now we have music that fits the stories instead of rubberstamp glop that fit none of them. Though on the flipside, "Descent" pt 1's intrusive music was minimal and the plotting and characters kept it going. Lack those and then the music has to carry the weight.
An interesting amalgamation, it's an odd mishmash of "D" and "A"/79-refit. It looks sleeker, avoiding fan art of the saucer separating helps, the nacelle design is pure art deco awesome, and yet the 1701-A style engineering section and cargo bay (nee aft shuttle bay or whatever the tail end is back there) make as little sense as the alcove where Lily and Picard crawl into in FC that also has no backup should the force field goes out... looked great overall, but the stories it was in often stunk...
LOL
Spiner's scene chewing was fun IMHO, but generally when the script had something other than a direct joke to rely on. The 90s movies just never found the mojo that Kirk's had in TWOK onward (IMHO). Or, especially in the 90s, I was expecting something more. Then again, the Bond flicks of the 90s also were too jokey and Brosnan deserved better too.
IMHO, it's trying too hard at times and Chekov is given Bones' lines and Scotty acts like the person who directly reports to Geordi (Senior lead under the division mgr), but there are a lot of eventful scenes that stand on its own.
A shame TNG's crew didn't feel as scattered as TOS's were, and how naturally the crew's return felt - unlike TNG where Worf returns for increasingly write-off reasons.
GEN is closest to Q's promise of "things to come", of "what's really out there". Ignore some meretricious minutiae over how the El Aurians were never noticed until they wandered into Earth solar system where the only ship around is the Enterprise, minus half of everything until Tuesday-- was Wimpy in charge and was spending more time ensuring the hamburgers got to the galley on time? GEN isn't perfect, but - and especially given the hurried nature of writing and rewriting - it's fairly good, but not *great*. Especially that first 50~75%.
Well said! The direction is sublime, elevating material that was sometimes too jokey, too hokey, too fanservicey, or just plain nonsensical. GEN wasn't perfect, but some issues are just too readily visible. Inverting the Moby Dick/revenge trope was interesting, but TNG the TV show addressed the issue well enough and they weren't telepathically communicating with him or Hugh or anyone else for 3 years either. The Borg felt underused, with superficial gimmicks.And, double-bingo, the juxtaposition of fish-out-of-water stuff does not gel with the seriousness of the threat at all.
But we got a cool pee joke, right? It's about time Trek the franchise breaks the 4th wall on something so obvious. Plenty of rooms or alcoves on the ship that seem to go nowhere go to a toilet. Even in the Ready Room. There. Problem solved*.
Frakes is solid, but Carson - per my reply to Richard above - definitely brought in some nifty variations and techniques that felt as cinematic on the big screen as they had on the small.
* obligatory photoshop:
I really need to fix Data's reflection off the fluorescent light there...
I've done a recent rewatch of tng movies, well I abandoned nemesis, but generations is the best of the lot imo. It's more TNG than the others.
FC is the apex of TNG filmmaking.
GEN is a little wonky in spots, but visually gorgeous, has a sumptuous soundtrack and William Shatner is the undisputed GOAT of the movie.
GEN is a little wonky in spots, but visually gorgeous, has a sumptuous soundtrack and William Shatner is the undisputed GOAT of the movie.
FC was just bad continuity wise. Turning Picard into an action hero from the contemplative type he was, rehashing the Borg trauma he mostly overcame with Hugh, the further distortion of the Borg from Cybermen into space zombies and the Queen thing.
The Borg could definitely have been used though would have been better ditching the time travel and as a Midway type movie showing Starfleet engaging a Borg fleet in depth. Since budget is always a concern, most could have been tactical dispaly and communication/dialogue describing more than showing with the action itself centered on Enterprise E.
I don't particularly hate Generations though they definitely did Kirk dirty and everyone seemed to recognize it after the fact.
The Borg could definitely have been used though would have been better ditching the time travel and as a Midway type movie showing Starfleet engaging a Borg fleet in depth. Since budget is always a concern, most could have been tactical dispaly and communication/dialogue describing more than showing with the action itself centered on Enterprise E.
I don't particularly hate Generations though they definitely did Kirk dirty and everyone seemed to recognize it after the fact.
Well, they hired a really well respected guy to be the Director of Photography - John A Alonzo and he was backe by Berman. He favored lighting scenes as much as possible from within the sets rather than staging lights and flags for each shot. Carson credited this approach with saving time and allowing more freedom when shooting. He later wrote that the production moved at a "TV-like" pace; principal photography concluded after 51 days
I happen to agree with Cinefantastique's Steve Biodrowski who praised some of the big-budget touches the film brought to the franchise, but wrote that most of the attempts such as John Alonzo's cinematography seemed to backfire.
But, the approach had it's supporters. In contrast, Carrie Rickey of The Philadelphia Inquirer and Den of Geek's Chris Cummins praised Alonzo's work as one of the few bright spots of the film; "[Alonzo] makes the Enterprise look like an actual lived-in starship," Cummins wrote, and "for the first time ever, the crew of the Enterprise-D looked like they were truly in outer space".[59] Elizabeth Renzetti from The Globe and Mail praised the film for its special effects, but felt they were not strong enough to cover the weak plotting.
Note: Large chunks of the above are quoted verbatim from Wikipedia
ok just wanted to mention one thing about the tng movies that they look so good because they are shot on film and you can see a massive diffrence between this and the tv series and that alone makes it worth it. i say this because modern movies shot on digital and look way too "clean" also. film framerate is i believe a little bit slower and its better for me. i liked generations. but i actually liked insurrection better. but aside from that, speaking of generations alone.
the special effects are insane in this movie. and obviously because its on film it magnify it. that enterprise crash felt so massive and the enterprise look very practical. but i did not like malcolm mcdowell character. i felt it was an underdeveloped vilian with a very shallow motives. and i know wiliam shatner got a razzy for his acting in this movie. for me at least it was not his acting, his acting was fine. but his dialouge was bad. he looked like he dident even care about anything, and the movie used him as a tool just to kill him so they will not have to cast him again. that was very weak. as if they got tired of tos movies and just wanted to get rid of him but also use him as a promotion tool to the movie. just the scanerio in which he and picard were together was dissapointing.
the special effects are insane in this movie. and obviously because its on film it magnify it. that enterprise crash felt so massive and the enterprise look very practical. but i did not like malcolm mcdowell character. i felt it was an underdeveloped vilian with a very shallow motives. and i know wiliam shatner got a razzy for his acting in this movie. for me at least it was not his acting, his acting was fine. but his dialouge was bad. he looked like he dident even care about anything, and the movie used him as a tool just to kill him so they will not have to cast him again. that was very weak. as if they got tired of tos movies and just wanted to get rid of him but also use him as a promotion tool to the movie. just the scanerio in which he and picard were together was dissapointing.
Not so obvious. Although it did just occur to me: FC does the most ambitious WORLD BUILDING of any Star Trek film (including TMP). It finally (if, to my mind, rather wrongly) tries to nail down "where did Star Trek come from"? I have to give it kudos for that.
But the most TNG movie of all of the TNG movies is GEN. By an order of magnitude. (Which is funny considering the "It's just a big episode" claims leveled at INS.)
Eh. He's a really good Shatner. He could be a better Kirk. But I think that ship sailed after 1984.
Oh heavens, yes.
Conversely, I think the world building in First Contact is superficial at best. It tells us some things, what little it shows us feels like a random studio backlot, and none of it is particularly well developed.
Similar threads
- Locked
