"All Good Things..." vs. Star Trek: Generations

[Lance]

A lot of fans also interpret that as being a season long story arc, but let's be honest, we all know on TNG it would never have been that. The destruction of the Enterprise would've been the shock season 6 finale, then the season 7 opener would have been the desperate backtrack to get a new (identical) Enterprise launched by the end of the episode so the rest of the season could be business as usual and they'd still be able to use the standard stock visual effects shots they'd been recycling for seven years. Even as a last hurrah, they would never have been brave enough to turn the whole show on its axis with a format changing premise in season 7. It was obviously just one of those crazy ideas spitballed in the writers room that nobody was ever going to run with, like Tom Riker becoming Will's replacement, or Ensign Ro remaining a child after "Rascals". Cool ideas, but never going to happen.

Personally, I think it's probably better that they held it back for the big damn movie instead, even though frankly I'd have prefered they hadn't destroyed 1701-D at all

 

[Relayer1]

I don't like any of the Next Gen movies, although I loved the series. If the four films, Generations was easily the worst - the other three are mediocre at best. Generations is pretty bad.

 

[marlboro]

Insurrection is the worst. I felt embarrassed for the actors, and I felt embarrassed to be watching it in public. I would be less ashamed to be busted by the cops in a porno theater than have to explain to my friends why I'm a Trek fan while Picard is singing Gilbert & Sullivan.

 

[Arpy]

The episodes I often hear being suggested as ones that would have made great movies are “All Good Things...” and “The Chase,” and I have to agree. Much better than those we got. “

The Chase” could have been epic, and what a payoff! Reminds me of the end of Contact a bit.

What’s another that you would suggest?

 

[JesterFace]

The episodes I often hear being suggested as ones that would have made great movies are “All Good Things...”

The original hour and a half version could be considered a movie.

What’s another that you would suggest?

I don't think TNG works well as movies, the about 45 minutes episode format works so much better.

 

[Arpy]

I don't think TNG works well as movies, the about 45 minutes episode format works so much better.

I don’t think they knew what to do with it on the big screen and dumbed it down.

Two-parters were more sophisticated and interesting than some of the movies. If they had a different team working on them, I think TNG could have been utterly amazing on the big screen.

TOS was certainly different from its TV incarnation.

“The Chase” especially could have been a great two-parter.

 

[marlboro]

They would need some major tweaking, but I think the basic plots of Conspiracy, Yesterday's Enterprise, and The Wounded might make good movies.

 

[TroiFan4ever]

Was that even necessary? Yeah, they're Trek captains but there's no need to get them together.

Wasn't that the point though? After all the movie is called Star Trek: Generations was it not? Picard and Kirk were captains from two different generations of the franchise, so staying true to the plot and the title of the film, having Kirk and Picard teaming up made perfect sense.

 

[Arpy]

They would need some major tweaking, but I think the basic plots of Conspiracy, Yesterday's Enterprise, and The Wounded might make good movies.

“Yesterday’s Enterprise” with the E-A could have been interesting for GEN, if you had to give TOS crew a send-off.

...although, wouldn’t that mean Kirk dies the 24th Century and Tasha falls in love with Spock? Okay, some rewrites...

 

[STR]

My problem with the changes is more that it all feels like surface detail. I used to love the new bridge design with its side consoles and such, but on reflection I feel the changes do nothing but make the bridge look *too* busy. The bridge on TV looked huge mainly because it took away all those unnecessary consoles and background artistes running about the place, but on the big screen, ironically, the same set looks *smaller*, because the command chairs have all been raised (no longer in a pit at the bottom of the horseshoe), and Worf has got a chair (so he no longer looms tall in the background of shots), the new side stations make the ramp between top and bottom smaller, and the addition of people to man all of those stations causes the whole bridge to feel cluttered. All of this combines to giving the illusion of the bridge being really tight to walk around in. I think it looks better on TV, 'hotel foyer lighting' and all

Right, the TV bridge looked better on TV because it was composed for the 4:3 format of TV. Everything they did on the bridge for the movie (lowering Worf, adding more details to the sides of the bridge) is designed for the wider film format. They didn't do all that stuff arbitrarily.

- Enterprise-D finally destroyed? Was it something that was supposed to happen from day one? I think destroying the ship was just something that the writers wanted to happen to differentiate from the series, series would have its own ship and the movies would have their own.

I think it's "finally" as in "for the last time". How many times did they blow that thing up? Blowing up the damn ship was the foundational premise for two episodes. "Time Squared" and "Cause and Effect".

Insurrection is the worst. I felt embarrassed for the actors, and I felt embarrassed to be watching it in public. I would be less ashamed to be busted by the cops in a porno theater than have to explain to my friends why I'm a Trek fan while Picard is singing Gilbert & Sullivan.

Insurrection is the most TNG of the TNG movies. It felt like a big budget episode even more than Generations. Sure, that's also an indictment if you expect movies to be grander events.

Also, the most embarrassing musical number in Trek history remains "Move Along Home" (coincidentally directed by Ben Carson, who did Generations too). Avery Brooks must have had some big bills to pay for not walking off in the middle of the shoot.

Beats HMS Pinafore and Row Row Your Boat by a parsec.

 

[Lance]

My problem with the changes is more that it all feels like surface detail. I used to love the new bridge design with its side consoles and such, but on reflection I feel the changes do nothing but make the bridge look *too* busy. The bridge on TV looked huge mainly because it took away all those unnecessary consoles and background artistes running about the place, but on the big screen, ironically, the same set looks *smaller*, because the command chairs have all been raised (no longer in a pit at the bottom of the horseshoe), and Worf has got a chair (so he no longer looms tall in the background of shots), the new side stations make the ramp between top and bottom smaller, and the addition of people to man all of those stations causes the whole bridge to feel cluttered. All of this combines to giving the illusion of the bridge being really tight to walk around in. I think it looks better on TV, 'hotel foyer lighting' and all

Right, the TV bridge looked better on TV because it was composed for the 4:3 format of TV. Everything they did on the bridge for the movie (lowering Worf, adding more details to

Well, yes, but that's exactly my point. It all feels like extrenuous details. The new side stations, Worf's chair, the raising of the command section, the handrails on the walls, the addition of dozens of crew members wandering around in the background. They've all been bolted onto the pre-existing set with seemingly little or no regard towards how out of place they may look or feel.

Don't get me wrong, I used to think the movie bridge looked 'kewl', and that the TV bridge looked terrible. But over time I've really come to appreciate the uniqueness of the TV version's "less is more" approach. It looks better with space and light. The movie version feels cramped and, frankly, not like an enviroment I'd enjoy working in.

 

[STR]

Well, yes, but that's exactly my point. It all feels like extrenuous details. The new side stations, Worf's chair, the raising of the command section, the handrails on the walls, the addition of dozens of crew members wandering around in the background. They've all been bolted onto the pre-existing set with seemingly little or no regard towards how out of place they may look or feel.

Don't get me wrong, I used to think the movie bridge looked 'kewl', and that the TV bridge looked terrible. But over time I've really come to appreciate the uniqueness of the TV version's "less is more" approach. It looks better with space and light. The movie version feels cramped and, frankly, not like an enviroment I'd enjoy working in.

No, that isn't "exactly your point" because that wasn't my point. My point is that every bridge in Trek history was crafted to best fit the filming format. TV sets are tall and narrow. Movie sets are wider, but "shorter". Even back to the TOS/TMP bridges.

What they did in GEN was adapt the set to the widescreen format. That's all. Putting the TV set, unaltered, into a movie would force less flattering shots. Putting a movie set on 4:3 TV would do the same. In either case, you A) crop something you didn't want to crop B) have something in the shot you don't want C) have to pull, zoom, or pan to work around your issues.

All of which affect the tone the director is trying to achieve or straight up make the product look amateurish. So what they do is plan out the scenes, and build/modify the set to accommodate those frames. GEN was produced on a thin $25M budget. They didn't do a thing they didn't have to. That's minimalism by necessity.

 

[Lance]

My point is that every bridge in Trek history was crafted to best fit the filming format. TV sets are tall and narrow. Movie sets are wider, but "shorter". Even back to the TOS/TMP bridges.

TMP's bridge was designed for TV and then adapted for film. Conversely, it seems Voyager's bridge was designed in anticipation of widescreen, camera tests were done to make the set "16:9 friendly", but that didn't happen in the life of that show, so tucking Tuvok and Harry Kim away in those alcoves at the back feels a little weird in hindsight.

My point, was that adapted or otherwise, the set is bursting at the seams with all the changes, because rather than rebuilding it completely (as was apparently done for TMP) they... welded on a few fangles, filled it with people, and thought that made it look cinematic. It looks and feels cluttered even on the big screen. The TV version looked vast on the small screen. It feels like it should have been the other way around? The movie version should feel bigger, wider. It doesn't.

 

[Desert Kris]

I think it's great that people really like Generations. There are some definitely enjoyable moments in the movie, and I'm glad to have it on video to watch every once in a while.

As the the question of Generations vs. AGT, I fall in the more predictable camp.

AGT is a very uplifting and affirming story, well told and cleverly written. TNG crew continue to have adventures, under their own steam (in their own ship), as it were.

Generations isn't very uplifting for me personally. It doesn't present TNG's crew in their best light, so it gives the impression that TNG's crew struggles to transition into an era of movies. They kill off some really wonderful dramatic characters off-screen in a really horrible way in order to present us (and general movie audiences who never met him) with Captain Picard, with a troubling character arc. Then they break their ship, and all but one of the crew are killed, until they reset the timeline with the help of Kirk. And then they have to be carried off at the end. They don't leave under their own steam to continue to have adventures. They are potentially scattered to the wind. Becoming movies broke TNG. It's a downer for me. Disheartening.

First Contact helps, and gets them up and running again in the space of a few minutes by introducing to us that they have a new Enterprise, and most of the characters we want to see have transitioned to it. We see the outside of the new ship, and in short order we see new sets that are counterparts of sets TNG often used: conference room, captain's ready room, and most importantly the new bridge of the ship. The writers bite the bullet and give us a "clunky" line of exposition that catches us up to their status nearly effortlessly; that they've had the new ship for about a year. However, that comes after two years of TNG's cast having been broken and torn apart by their becoming the movie torchbearers; and left in that state of uncertainty for the intervening time between movies.

 

[marlboro]

I think what I like least about Trek movies is the juvenile humor that is shoehorned into it. Scotty bumping his head, Picard singing, Worf with a zit etc.

I dislike it in both the TOS and TNG flicks, but it is harder for me to swallow in the TNG movies for a couple of reasons. 1) TOS had more camp and humor to begin with. 2) The TOS actors were better at delivering comedic lines.

I just don't think TNG translates to brainless one liner filled popcorn flick mode very well. Even judging them by the mindless summer action flick standard, they kind of fail.