Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

[TedShatner10]

TOS movies from the late 1970s to early 1990s were of course very mixed in quality (giving rise to the urban legend of uneven Trek movies being pants), but with the grudging exception of First Contact the movies based on TNG were broadly mediocre and disappointing, arguably doing more damage to the public image of Star Trek than the much pilloried Voyager and Enterprise put together (however both shows seem to be getting better pess).

Here is my basic overview of TNG movies:

Generations - Well meaning with Picard meeting Kirk, with Kirk saving the day one last time, but ultimately disappointing in execution and the villains were kinda boring.

First Contact - Mindless fun and generally successful, the most enjoyable TNG movie, but somewhat overrated.

Insurrection - A double order of "meh" and "ugh". Personally I think it is the worst of the bunch.

Nemesis - Watchable and well intentioned, but again has a mediocre execution, can't quite pin down what it wants to be, and is saddled with a more visibly aging TNG cast.

What do you think?

 

[cardinal biggles]

I think there's a couple of factors involved here...

1. The transition to movies was an upgrade for TOS. Even with Paramount's tighter budgets post-TMP, the visual quality of the sets, costumes, makeup, props, visual effects models, etc. was leaps and bounds above what they were able to do on TOS. Part of it's just simply that they had more money, and part of it is the technological advancements brought on by films like 2001 and Star Wars.

For TNG, going to films was a lateral move; they already had movie-quality sets on the TV show (since most of them had been directly swiped from the standing sets left over from the first four TOS films). The film budget allowed them to try a few things they couldn't have afforded on TV like the three-story Stellar Cartography set in GEN, and the three-story engine room on the Enterprise-E. But otherwise, there wasn't really a marked improvement in the sets, costumes, etc.

2. The storytelling style fit TOS better. Unless you're the late Robert Altman, films usually work best if there's a small group of main characters who get most of the focus. TOS was already like that, with Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley being the top-billed stars of the show; the others were just that — supporting characters. If anything, the movie format (two hours to tell a single story) opened up opportunities for the supporting cast to shine, which was used to great effect in TSFS and TVH.

For an ensemble show like TNG, movies kind of ruined the feel; the stories all became about Picard and Data, and except for First Contact the supporting cast weren't utilized very well most of the time. Then there's also the problem that the stories they came up with weren't all that great to begin with. They did better stories on the TV show. And when that happens, you do start to question why you're spending $10 for a movie ticket when you can go home and watch a better story for free.

 

[CoveTom]

The TNG movies were mediocre because they forgot what it was that made TNG appealing and wildly successful. Instead, virtually everyone involved -- the studio, the producers, even some of the actors -- bought into the Hollywood myth that you had to change everything into 'standard Hollywood movie formula A' in order to appeal to that mythical homogenous mass market.

To wit:
- You can't do ensemble casts in movies; there have to be one or two key players.
- You must forget all about backstories; the general public won't know them or be able to figure them out.
- Action and flashy effects are what draw in crowds; plot and characters are secondary.
- Intelligent, thought-provoking stories won't work; the mass market is too stupid.
- You have to spend lots of money to make a successful movie.

In short, it was assumed that everything that was unique and special to TNG would not work in a movie format and, therefore, that everything must be changed. Instead of actual TNG movies, we pretty much got generic sci-fi action stories that just happened to feature the same actors from TNG.

All of this is, of course, patently absurd. Does anyone really think that stories like 'The Best of Both Worlds' and 'Yesterday's Enterprise' would not have made excellent films? The same types of stories, BTW, that were making TNG so successful on television that it was actually beating mass-market programs like Monday Night Football? Of course they would have. But Hollywood doesn't want to hear that.

 

[Basil]

I never found the characters or actors playing them in TNG to be all that interesting. They lacked the color and appeal of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. Putting them on the big screen made it even worse. Of course, the stories were only marginally better than the TV episodes, which themselves were frequently tedious and pedantic, the way modern Trek became less and less accessible to the average person. TOS, while smart and literary, was trying to bring sci-fi to the masses, albeit with an assumption that the masses were not simply walking hormones getting off on gee-whiz FX, hyperkinetic camerawork, and big explosions, as the assumption is today.

 

[Anticitizen]

In trying to recapture the success of the TOS movies, the writers/producers focused on the wrong elements. Star Trek became what I call 'Battle Trek', in which every plot focused around a manufactured villain with questionable motives and culminated in a Big Space Battle (TM). This is most evident in Nemesis, wherein more than a few plot elements are directly lifted from The Wrath of Khan - a villain who singles out Picard as his 'nemesis', a doomsday weapon with a countdown that is stopped by the sacrifice of the (usually) logical non-human second in command, a battle in a nebula, etc.

However, Khan was a fantastic movie for reasons beyond 'Captain X. Vs. Villain'. It contained themes of aging, youth versus experience, and selfless sacrifice, smartly invoking literature such as 'Moby Dick' and 'A Tale of Two Cities' in the process. The themes were arranged by way of elements like the trainee crew and Saavik's Kobyashi Maru test, and Kirk later facing the no-win scenario in the real world. He couldn't cheat his way out of it, and it was Spock who cut the Gordian knot - "I never took the Kobyashi Maru test. What do you think of my solution?" That line, along with Kirk's line at the end - "...something Spock was trying to tell me on my birthday" (referring to his gift of 'A Tale of Two Cities') summon tears in me to this day, as does David's reveal to Kirk that he knows of their relationship "I'm proud... very proud... to be your son." By the end of the movie, those who survived have grown, Captain, father, son, and trainee alike.

I used TWOK as an example here because it's the only one that had a plot and framework directly lifted from it, but the other TOS movies were similarly thematic (with varying degrees of success).

None of the TNG movies had this kind of heart. They seemed to think that the TOS movies were loved because of big space battles and roaring villains.

 

[Praetor]

I think there's a couple of factors involved here...

1. The transition to movies was an upgrade for TOS. Even with Paramount's tighter budgets post-TMP, the visual quality of the sets, costumes, makeup, props, visual effects models, etc. was leaps and bounds above what they were able to do on TOS. Part of it's just simply that they had more money, and part of it is the technological advancements brought on by films like 2001 and Star Wars.

For TNG, going to films was a lateral move; they already had movie-quality sets on the TV show (since most of them had been directly swiped from the standing sets left over from the first four TOS films). The film budget allowed them to try a few things they couldn't have afforded on TV like the three-story Stellar Cartography set in GEN, and the three-story engine room on the Enterprise-E. But otherwise, there wasn't really a marked improvement in the sets, costumes, etc.

2. The storytelling style fit TOS better. Unless you're the late Robert Altman, films usually work best if there's a small group of main characters who get most of the focus. TOS was already like that, with Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley being the top-billed stars of the show; the others were just that — supporting characters. If anything, the movie format (two hours to tell a single story) opened up opportunities for the supporting cast to shine, which was used to great effect in TSFS and TVH.

For an ensemble show like TNG, movies kind of ruined the feel; the stories all became about Picard and Data, and except for First Contact the supporting cast weren't utilized very well most of the time. Then there's also the problem that the stories they came up with weren't all that great to begin with. They did better stories on the TV show. And when that happens, you do start to question why you're spending $10 for a movie ticket when you can go home and watch a better story for free.

Very well said, biggles. I think you've basically covered all points.

 

[Xerxes1979]

Is it possible that films in general just became less enjoyable sometime in the mid 1990s?

I really hate the 1980s but for all the problems a very large percentage of "classic" American films hail from that decade, especially comedies and action flicks. Hollywood's second golden age?

 

[Praetor]

Is it possible that films in general just became less enjoyable sometime in the mid 1990s?

I really hate the 1980s but for all the problems a very large percentage of "classic" American films hail from that decade, especially comedies and action flicks. Hollywood's second golden age?

IMO, yes it's possible that an overall decline in quality contributed to it. However, I'd argue that it was not the primary cause. Those cardinal biggles cited above are more what I tend to think caused it.

 

[cardinal biggles]

There may have been, but I'm sort of dubious on that notion... every generation says the next generation's (no pun intended) films suck, and that theirs, or those of the generation before them were far better. If you take the long view, today's films probably aren't proportionally any worse or stupid than those of 20, 40, or 60 years ago.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

Biggles and Basil hit it on the nose/bow for me.

The overall ho-hum blandness of the TNG crew really comes out the most times I see re-runs on TV. They're just... *blah*

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[cardinal biggles]

I didn't realize just how bland they were until I borrowed the season sets of TOS from my local library... screw 40+ years old and cardboard sets and dated visual effects... those stories were so alive!

 

[JustKate]

Honestly, I think almost all the movies are mediocre. Some of the movies featuring TOS cast were less mediocre than the TNG movies, but I can't say any of them are on my list of Movies I Want to See Again and Again. Which is a huge shame, since they are Star Trek.

Don't mean to rain on your thread parade, though - so don't worry, I won't pop up again and again whining at how little enthusiasm I have for the movies.

 

[EnsignRicky]

They were rushed to the theaters too soon. They still had the taste of episodic television in their mouths.

 

[DWF]

I don't think the TNG movies were any better or any worse than the TOS movies, the TOS movies had the benefit of the show not being on the air for over a decade. No matter iffy of a movie TMP was it was great just seeing the cast back together again.

 

[Praetor]

There may have been, but I'm sort of dubious on that notion... every generation says the next generation's (no pun intended) films suck, and that theirs, or those of the generation before them were far better. If you take the long view, today's films probably aren't proportionally any worse or stupid than those of 20, 40, or 60 years ago.

I was thinking something similar right after I wrote it... I don't know, though. It's still possible.

 

[Kelso]

Honestly, I think almost all the movies are mediocre. Some of the movies featuring TOS cast were less mediocre than the TNG movies, but I can't say any of them are on my list of Movies I Want to See Again and Again. Which is a huge shame, since they are Star Trek.

Don't mean to rain on your thread parade, though - so don't worry, I won't pop up again and again whining at how little enthusiasm I have for the movies.

Star Trek has only ever managed to produce a total of 3 good movies... but at least the mediocre-bad TOS movies were/are fun to watch.

The last two TNG films were just painful.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I covered this a bit in my thread about Star Trek IV, but to re-iterate some of what I said and add a few more points:

1) Time between series finale and first movie: It wasn't as natural a transition from TV to movies as the first one because of the time difference. The actors aging ten years between the end of "Star Trek" and the start of the movie franchise allowed them and the writers to play them as ten years older, which provided richer story opportunities.

2) Number of seasons: The fact that TNG already had 7 seasons done before they started movies made a big difference. They simply didn't have as many ideas left for stories as the original "Star Trek" had. Even though it was followed by an animated series, that series still basically had only 3 seasons worth of stories.

3) Momentum: TNG was also coming off a pretty weak final season (excluding a handful of episodes and the finale), so it was obvious their staff were running low on creative juices even before the movies started. "Star Trek", on the other hand, had been inactive (aside from the the animated series), giving the actors ample time to "recharge their batteries" before starting the movies, and Paramount time to carefully select a creative crew for them. I think TNG mostly just used the same already burned out staff they had on the show.

4) Behind-the-scenes talent: The original Star Trek movies simply had better crews involved. Better directors, better writers, and better producers who were all much more adept at distilling what made Star Trek work and filtering out what didn't accordingly for a smooth transition to the big screen. Compare Rick Berman to Harve Bennett or Nicholas Meyer to any of the TNG movie directors and you have people were just much more clever, experienced, and business savvy when it came to bringing Star Trek to the big screen (although I do think Frakes was an excellent director who should have had a better career in that capacity).

I'd also like to point out how strongly I disagree with the argument that ensembles don't work in movies. There are tons of movies with many, many major characters that work...sometimes with even more than Star Trek's "big 7". For example, 12 Angry Men, which is rightfully considered one of the best acted, written, and directed movies of all-time. It consists of little more than 12 different characters talking the whole time and yet manages to be consistently fascinating and develops each character impressively. The same goes for The Dirty Dozen, Boogie Nights and countless others. All it takes is good casting and very careful, clever, and economical writing that can balance out having many characters within a story. They just need to establish who each character is memorably, give them a scene or two that they can shine in, and give them an organic function in the story without marginalizing some for the sake of lavishing more attention on others.

 

[Praetor]

Well said, Too Much Fun.

 

[chrisspringob]

All of this is, of course, patently absurd. Does anyone really think that stories like 'The Best of Both Worlds' and 'Yesterday's Enterprise' would not have made excellent films?

"The Best of Both Worlds" would have, but "Yesterday's Enterprise" wouldn't. Audiences probably would have rebelled if, rather than watching the characters that we're all familiar with, we were instead given a story that focused on alternate versions of those characters from an alternate timeline.....an alternate timeline that ceases to exist at the end of the movie. It was great for a 1 hour episode, but I don't think it would work for a movie.

A lot of other great TNG episodes have similar problems. "Cause and Effect", "Tapestry", and "Parallels" all have similar "there's some kind of timeloop or messing around with the timeline that all gets reset at the end of the episode" problems. Which isn't really a problem for a one hour episode, but it wouldn't work in a movie. "The Inner Light" and "Frame of Mind" both take place in one character's mind. "The Measure of a Man" and "The Offspring" are too low key to be made into movies.

Really, there aren't *that* many TNG episodes that I think would have made great movies. I think it's possible that the show's writers were simply good at writing 1 hour TV episodes, but not so good at writing movies.

 

[kitsune]

The TNG films all had crappy plots with too many loopholes, and lacked believability and real drama.

Generations

The inconsistent uniforms were jarring.
The emotion-chip subplot was annoying. Mr. Tricorder, indeed.
The pace was quite slow.
The inclusion of Kirk, Scotty, and Chekov felt gratuitous.
Capt. Harriman was not believable.
Launching the Enterprise-B with passengers but without all systems functional, was not believable.
How difficult would it have been for the saucer to have used its maneuvering thrusters and impulse engines to avoid crashing on Veridian III?
Why didn't Soran just fly an EVA suit into the Nexus? Or a shuttlecraft? (so what if the shuttlecraft got destroyed? He'd still make it to the Nexus.)
Why didn't Riker know what trilithium was?
Kirk's death was cheap, cheap, cheap! Even if I don't like the character, he deserved better than that.

First Contact

No dramatic launch sequence for the Enterprise-E?!
The Borg cube was destroyed waaay too easily, even if they found the weak point. No drama.
Retroactively-introduced Borg queen?!
I hate time travel because it opens up a gigantic can of worms.
If the Borg can time travel whenever they want, then they should be pretty much invincible. Whenever you're about to be destroyed, send a message back in time to warn yourself about what went wrong and how to avoid it.
Lily was quite the spaz.
Cochrane was not believable.
The conditions under which the Phoenix was developed were not believable.
Picard issuing orders to kill assimilated crewmates was not believable.
Picard killing a crewmate was not believable.

Insurrection

Starfleet did not act in a believable way.
Three words: Manual steering column.
Why didn't the Son'a just colonize the opposite side of the planet from the Ba'ku? They could've saved themselves a lot of effort.

Nemesis

Data finds a clone.
Picard meets his clone in the same film.
Data uploads his memories to the clone indiscriminantly. Next film: Star Trek: The Search for Data.
Where did the Romulans get B-4 from?
Their plot with B-4 had a one-in-a-million chance of working. It was not believable.
Emergency one-way transport device = cheap plot device.