First Contact Criticisms

[CoveTom]

So I re-watched First Contact this evening. I still think it is a nearly perfect Trek film and certainly the best of the TNG films. I think Jonathan Frakes is a wonderful director, the script is extremely well-written, the visual effects are excellent, and Jerry Goldsmith delivers a masterful score as always. In watching it again, there were only two things that jumped out at me, as they have in the past, as criticisms I have:

1. The confrontation with Picard in the observation lounge absolutely should have been Crusher. Not only would it have given her a more significant role to play in the film, but it would have been appropriate given the history of those two characters.

2. It really bugs me every time that Picard says "make it so" instead of "engage" at the end of the film.

That's it. Those are my criticisms.

Thoughts?

 

[Mage]

1. The confrontation with Picard in the observation lounge absolutely should have been Crusher. Not only would it have given her a more significant role to play in the film, but it would have been appropriate given the history of those two characters.

As much as I agree....
I think the concept of Doctor Crusher's character was very good. And maybe on stage, where she came from, McFaden is a great actress. It's a different form of acting.
But her abilities as seen on TNG and the TNG movies.... I don't think she could have pulled that scene off. Woodard is a brilliant actress and she sold the anger, sympathy and at some point almost loathing she feels towards Picard brilliantly.
So, yeah. You're right. It should have been Crusher. But it wouldn't have worked. Atleast, not as it played out.

 

[JamesRye]

I have to say that I really like the movie - but also that it's over rated. For me, a 7/10 - I remember reviewing it for a fanzine and saying that the TNG crew were getting the hang of things, and the next one would be a classic. How wrong I was.

So here are my issues with the movie.
1. Picard is completely out of character. He murders his own crewman rather than let him be assimilated - even though we know it is a reversible process.
2. Why do the Borg battle all the way to earth and then use the time jump thing?
3. Why take Data to earth? he sticks out like a sore thumb.
4. Why do you have warp plasma tanks in engineering that are easily punctured?
5. How did the Vulcans not detect the torpedoes heading towards the Pheonix?

I mean, there's more nit picks, but like Generations - there is a fundamental plot hole (number 2) just like Guinan saying they can leave the Nexus anytime and anywhere. The movie is leagues ahead of Insurrection and Nemesis though.

I totally get why they went with Woodard over McFadden - just look at McFadden's diversion scene. I mean, that's some B grade acting right there.

First Contact is a pretty simple movie that is well directed and lit. It also benefits immeasurably from a killer Jerry Goldsmith score.

I will forever be gutted that TNG couldn't transition to the big screen successfully. Man did I love the TV show, which was way smarter. Imagine Redemption, The Best of Both Worlds - or Yesterdays Enterprise as a big budget movie - boy that would have been epic. Instead we got Generations, which was made on the cheap and was stymied by studio demands, First Contact, which works - but is a rip off from better Sci-Fi movies like Alien. And the less said about Insurrection and Nemesis the better - Insurrection was ruined by Patrick Stewart interfering and Nemesis was ruined by Brent Spiner interfering.

 

[BillJ]

Incredibly overrated film. I'd rather watch Nemesis.

 

[Mage]

Good points above. I love First Contact because in terms of production values, directing, editing, SFX, acting, costumes, score and so forth.... It is easily top three, probably top two Star Trek movies. But in terms of plotholes and ('ve said this so often) being a scifi action movie set in the Star Trek universe instead of a Star Trek movie with action movie stuff in it, it ranks lower.
Still.....
Top three Star Trek movies are still TMP, TUC and FC. In that order. For me personally.

 

[Mage]

Incredibly overrated film. I'd rather watch Nemesis.

Fuck it, I'm gonna go there.....

FC is the better made movie. But despite so many things done wrong by the director, Nemesis feels way for more set in the (THEN) current Star Trek universe.

 

[CoveTom]

Here's the thing: I don't mind Picard being out of character in this film. I think his history with the Borg makes that plausible. I think it works in the context of this one film. What I mind is him remaining out of character in Insurrection and Nemesis when there is no valid reason for it.

 

[Mage]

Here's the thing: I don't mind Picard being out of character in this film. I think his history with the Borg makes that plausible. I think it works in the context of this one film. What I mind is him remaining out of character in Insurrection and Nemesis when there is no valid reason for it.

Hm.... I've argued this many times on this forum, and will do so now....
People change. I have. I am not who I was 20 years ago. For good or for bad. Neither should fictional characters be the same. TNG ended with Picard taking big steps to be a more relaxed and open minded person. Not open minded to others, but to himself.

Let me ask you this... Are you the same person you were 25 years ago? In the core, perhaps... But be honest. Your choice in music. Food. Movies. Your ideology, perhaps?
No one is. People that say they are are stuck to a core memory, but we all change. So did Picard.
So I am ok with Picard living his life and racing a dune buggy across an alien planet while on a mission. (it was a bit OTT, I admit )
But if he was still the same exact character he was at the start of TNG.... THAT's the lazy writing a lot of people accuse the current era of Star Trek of.

 

[CoveTom]

Hm.... I've argued this many times on this forum, and will do so now....
People change. I have. I am not who I was 20 years ago. For good or for bad. Neither should fictional characters be the same. TNG ended with Picard taking big steps to be a more relaxed and open minded person. Not open minded to others, but to himself.

Let me ask you this... Are you the same person you were 25 years ago? In the core, perhaps... But be honest. Your choice in music. Food. Movies. Your ideology, perhaps?
No one is. People that say they are are stuck to a core memory, but we all change. So did Picard.
So I am ok with Picard living his life and racing a dune buggy across an alien planet while on a mission. (it was a bit OTT, I admit )
But if he was still the same exact character he was at the start of TNG.... THAT's the lazy writing a lot of people accuse the current era of Star Trek of.

I don't want Picard, in the TNG films, to be the same person he was at the start of TNG. But, yes, I think he should basically be the same person he was at the end of TNG.

 

[BillJ]

But, yes, I think he should basically be the same person he was at the end of TNG.

I can understand to a degree. Unfortunately, if you're an actor, what kind of satisfaction is derived from a character never changing? Outside the money you make.

TV/filmmaking sounds like an absolute chore. You have 500 people involved trying to pull things 500 different ways. It is a miracle anything ever gets made.

 

[Mage]

I don't want Picard, in the TNG films, to be the same person he was at the start of TNG. But, yes, I think he should basically be the same person he was at the end of TNG.

I'm going there.....

As a real life human being, I have gone through a lot in the last 7 years. Not to mention, thanks to therapy, EMDR and people who kick my ass when I need to have it kicked.
Picard opened his hearth to his crew and loved ones at the end of TNG. That was the BEGINNING of the of the journey. Not the end. It's where he started to be come some one else. Not finish.
So no.... I accept that you want that to be what it is. And I will now stop arguing it. Because it's make believe and we can all take what we want from it.
But in real life, it is simply not possible to expect someone to start a journey (All Good Things) that can change a life, but expect it to stop there. It's simply not realistic. But neither is Star Trek. So if that is what you wanted, I will accept your desires. But I will still call them unrealistic in real life.

I hope I phrased all of that in a way that can make everyone happy. Probably not. FML.

 

[Gepard]

1. Picard is completely out of character. He murders his own crewman rather than let him be assimilated - even though we know it is a reversible process.

I can't disagree with your other points, but this one is literally the thematic gist of the movie. Of course he's out of character, it's brought up and argued in the text. It's a major problem he has to overcome, putting him in spiritual alignment with Cochrane and contrasting with the Borg, who believe in their own infallibility right to the end and which destroys them.

 

[Riley]

Man...I have to hold back a bit with this one.

1-Every character is out of character, except Worf. It's been made clear from interviews over the years that this film, like all the TNG films, was really just an excuse for the cast to get together again and have fun. They were burned out after seven years and GEN, so they phoned it in for all of the TNG films. Picard is almost an entirely new character. Drunk

2-The Defiant should have made more of an impact on a Borg cube.

3-The premise is moronic: the Borg now have the ability to travel through time. Based on what we see on screen, that ability is not limited. For whatever reason, they decide to go back three hundred years to prevent first contact with the Vulcans and stop the founding of the UFP? They could have simply gone back another century and assimilated the entire planet. Picard and his crew would be screwed, along with the future. That's just one of MANY other plans the Borg could have used that would have made more sense.

4-It seems that Kirk is given a lot of flack for temporal violations, but Riker, Troi, Geordi, and the crew that beamed down should have been imprisoned or court martialed or whatever the penalty is for gross violation of the Temporal Prime Directive. There was no need to show Cochrane the Enterprise nor tell him as much as they did. They absolutely altered the timeline, which leads to...

5-Enterprise: Regeneration. Picard should have taken the time to make certain that EVERY scrap of debris was removed from the planet before they returned to their century. It was, as we saw in Regeneration, highly irresponsible. The true Picard of the series would not have done this.

6-The way that the Enterprise gets home was cheap and lazy. The argument has been made, "there have to be shortcuts for the general audience." That's a hollow and sad argument. As CBS has hopefully learned with Abrams - Kurtzman, the general audience doesn't much care for Star Trek. The TNG movies sacrificed the very soul of what made that show what it was to appeal to a demographic that never cared.

7-The Enterprise-E is the worst of John Eaves' many poor designs. That monstrosity does not deserve the name, though to same can be said for the others that have cropped up in video games and Kurtz Trek since.

8-Credit where it's due: Alfre Woodard's performance is the highlight of the film, with Goldsmith's score and the SFX right behind it.

 

[Gepard]

3-The premise is moronic: the Borg now have the ability to travel through time. Based on what we see on screen, that ability is not limited. For whatever reason, they decide to go back three hundred years to prevent first contact with the Vulcans and stop the founding of the UFP? They could have simply gone back another century and assimilated the entire planet. Picard and his crew would be screwed, along with the future. That's just one of MANY other plans the Borg could have used that would have made more sense.

6-The way that the Enterprise gets home was cheap and lazy.

Of the film's contrivances, these are the two that bother me the most. I understand Moore and Braga need to get the TNG crew, the Borg, and Zephram Cochrane into the same place and time to tell the story they want to tell -- and I love the story once its underway - but they have to bend logic pretty hard to get them there. The ending is especially egregious: what, you mean Geordi just casually found a way to flip some switches and turn a warp core into a time machine, on demand? Can they then do this any time they want? TVH I guess technically has a similar problem but at least there we see the mechanics of the time travel and understand it to be difficult and risky. Here it feels like they put the sun roof down and cruise into the future.

 

[Riley]

Of the film's contrivances, these are the two that bother me the most. I understand Moore and Braga need to get the TNG crew, the Borg, and Zephram Cochrane into the same place and time to tell the story they want to tell -- and I love the story once its underway - but they have to bend logic pretty hard to get them there. The ending is especially egregious: what, you mean Geordi just casually found a way to flip some switches and turn a warp core into a time machine, on demand? Can they then do this any time they want? TVH I guess technically has a similar problem but at least there we see the mechanics of the time travel and understand it to be difficult and risky. Here it feels like they put the sun roof down and cruise into the future.

Yep, and we're just supposed to forget that this was possible. It might have been nice if they'd instead had to use the slingshot method to get home, which some of the general audience might have remembered from Star Trek IV.

 

[Sketcher]

Picard's out of characterness doesn't bother me. In First Contact all that PTSD came rushing to the surface, so it makes sense he's unhinged, and was very much the point of the the film. For the subsequent films, well, I've noticed some people as they age revert to acting how they were in their younger days. And Picard was a bit of a wild youth.

Also I love First Contact despite it's plot holes. Top 3 Trek film for me.

 

[JamesRye]

Picard's out of characterness doesn't bother me. In First Contact all that PTSD came rushing to the surface, so it makes sense he's unhinged, and was very much the point of the the film. For the subsequent films, well, I've noticed some people as they age revert to acting how they were in their younger days. And Picard was a bit of a wild youth.

Also I love First Contact despite it's plot holes. Top 3 Trek film for me.

It's a good counter argument for Picard, but he was fine in I Borg and Descent. I guess the PTSD of dealing with a cube over Earth would be pretty intense though, so I can take that point. Killing the crewman....I find that one tough.

 

[Dukhat]

Here's the thing: I don't mind Picard being out of character in this film. I think his history with the Borg makes that plausible. I think it works in the context of this one film. What I mind is him remaining out of character in Insurrection and Nemesis when there is no valid reason for it.

Yes, but let's be real. That was just a paper-thin excuse to turn the Picard character into an action hero when TNG showed that he was nothing of the sort, even after multiple encounters with the Borg after BoBW. And his remaining an action hero for the next two films is just the result of that.

But getting back on topic: I believe the biggest criticism I have of FC is the introduction of the most ridiculous aspect of the Borg having a 'queen' who is all sexy and emotional. It completely neuters the concept of the Borg up until then. Some shithead scriptwriter decided that the Borg are like insects, with drones and a queen (which they only superficially resemble and are far more different than ants) and that their actions are predicated on the whims of this one woman who acts nothing like the Borg.

 

[CoveTom]

Yes, but let's be real. That was just a paper-thin excuse to turn the Picard character into an action hero when TNG showed that he was nothing of the sort, even after multiple encounters with the Borg after BoBW. And his remaining an action hero for the next two films is just the result of that.

I don't fully agree with this part. Yes, Patrick Stewart did want Picard to become an action hero. However, the entire thrust of First Contact's story was about how Picard still had some form of PTSD from his experience with the Borg and how that fundamentally was still haunting him. And let's be honest. Picard showed in TNG that he could hold his own in a fight when he needed to. But the fact is, Starfleet was actually right in their reasoning at the beginning of the film. I don't feel like the "action hero" moments that Picard has in this film feel tacked on in any way. It is when it continues beyond that film that it becomes obviously just a re-working of the character.

But getting back on topic: I believe the biggest criticism I have of FC is the introduction of the most ridiculous aspect of the Borg having a 'queen' who is all sexy and emotional. It completely neuters the concept of the Borg up until then. Some shithead scriptwriter decided that the Borg are like insects, with drones and a queen (which they only superficially resemble and are far more different than ants) and that their actions are predicated on the whims of this one woman who acts nothing like the Borg.

I agree, except I think this goes all the way back to "The Best of Both Worlds." I have always said that I think "Q Who?" was really the only time they got the Borg right, because that was written by Maurice Hurley who created them. By BoBW, they were already struggling with the idea of the Borg not having a leader. So first we get Locutus, then we get Hugh, then we get Lore, then we get the queen. The writers were always trying to take the Borg and turn them into a traditional villain with a leader instead of one collective mind.

(Of course, all that pales in comparison to how they become neutered in Voyager, but that's a discussion for another day.)

 

[Gepard]

I was 13 and hormonal when I saw First Contact, so I didn't mind the Borg Queen at all.