Deforrest Kelley in Gennerations

[Allyn Gibson]

Both Spock and McCoy lived to interact with members the Enterprise D.

But "Generations didn't explore that aspect. It's precisely why Nimoy turned down the role. "Unification, Part II" had put Spock into the thick of the action and provided cross-pollination advertising for ST VI, which he had produced. "Unification, Part I" had a cameo of Spock only to split the salary budget across two episodes and make him more affordable. Kelley did McCoy in "Farpoint" for scale, as a special favour to DC Fontana and the fans.

No script put Spock or McCoy into the heart of the action.

I've long wished to read Nimoy's story notes on the script. There were changes he wanted done before he'd agree to direct, but Berman wanted the script shot as written.

If it were up to me, I'd have contrived a way to get Spock into the 24th-century part of the film. Doing what exactly I don't know. That may or may not have been one of Nimoy's notes.

But my ideal rewrite would put the climax of the film on the Enterprise-B. Have Kirk and Picard leave the Nexus and stop Soran at the very beginning. And you'd have to contrive a reason for that -- maybe Soran himself has gone there to try and drive the Enterprise into the Nexus to reunite the split halves of the saved El-Aurians. I doubt that was one of Nimoy's notes.

 

[Captaindemotion]

The scripted version would have had more ties with TOS previous known connections with TNG.

But it didn't.

Both Spock and McCoy lived to interact with members the Enterprise D.

But "Generations didn't explore that aspect. It's precisely why Nimoy turned down the role. "Unification, Part II" had put Spock into the thick of the action and provided cross-pollination advertising for ST VI, which he had produced. "Unification, Part I" had a cameo of Spock only to split the salary budget across two episodes and make him more affordable. Kelley did McCoy in "Farpoint" for scale, as a special favour to DC Fontana and the fans.

No script put Spock or McCoy into the heart of the action.

I always found that baffling. I could understand that they wanted to concentrate on the TNG crew and that the original crew had had their swansongs in TUC. But if this was to be a transitional movie, a passing of the baton, and if the characters were to appear in it anyway, then why not have Spock and McCoy or even Scotty on the ENT-D at the end? We already knew that they were alive in the 24th century, at least a short time before the events of GEN. So why not bring them in at the end, maybe reunite them with Kirk one last time?

Yes, it would have been contrived as hell. But I think I could have lived with it, for one.

 

[Therin of Andor]

why not have Spock and McCoy or even Scotty on the ENT-D at the end? We already knew that they were alive in the 24th century, at least a short time before the events of GEN. So why not bring them in at the end, maybe reunite them with Kirk one last time?

How do you explain to movie goers, who may never have seen the right episodes, why McCoy is so frail, and where Spock has been - and why he's abandoned the Romulans - and yet Scotty hasn't aged much at all?

Yes, it would have been contrived as hell. But I think I could have lived with it, for one.

You could have lived with it, but "Generations" was already "contrived as hell".

 

[Captaindemotion]

why not have Spock and McCoy or even Scotty on the ENT-D at the end? We already knew that they were alive in the 24th century, at least a short time before the events of GEN. So why not bring them in at the end, maybe reunite them with Kirk one last time?

How do you explain to movie goers, who may never have seen the right episodes, why McCoy is so frail, and where Spock has been - and why he's abandoned the Romulans - and yet Scotty hasn't aged much at all?

Yes, it would have been contrived as hell. But I think I could have lived with it, for one.

You could have lived with it, but "Generations" was already "contrived as hell".

How to explain it? Well, after the prologue in the movie, remember how there appeared onscreen '78 years later' (IIRC - might have been a different number). I think it's reasonable to surmise that the audience could have figured out that Bones had aged in that time and now looked very old.

All you'd need was a line from Scotty about how old Bones looked and Bones replying 'We weren't all lucky enough to be in suspended animation in a broken transporter beam for 75 years, like you' or something like that. And then making a dig about how those green-blooded Vulcan hobgoblins age at a ridiculously slow rate.

And yes, I was careful to say that I could live with it, because I don't presume to speak for anyone else. I tend not to say things like 'Fans would have loved it' or 'everyone would have enjoyed this.' I can only speak for myself and I'd have liked to see Scotty and McCoy in the 24th century action.

GEN was indeed contrived as hell but it was always going to have to be that way to see Kirk and Picard on the same screen at the same time. As far as I was concerned, they may as well have gone for broke!

Edit - the other thing I should add is that I posted in response to the line 'No script ever put Spock and McCoy at the heart of the action.' I can certainly understand why, for many, many reasons, the ultimate shooting script, or even the second or third drafts, didn't have them in the thick of it. I was just surprised by the fact that no-one ever tried a first draft with them in it, just to see how it worked.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The other thing I should add is that I posted in response to the line 'No script ever put Spock and McCoy at the heart of the action.' I can certainly understand why, for many, many reasons, the ultimate shooting script, or even the second or third drafts, didn't have them in the thick of it. I was just surprised by the fact that no-one ever tried a first draft with them in it, just to see how it worked.

It goes back to what I said earlier, about Nimoy's problems with the script and the rewrite he wanted in order to direct the film. Sometimes writers are so close to something that they can't see its problems. And that's the issue with Generations. We can look at the film and see all the dangling things that would have led the story quite easily into other, more interesting directions, but it never occurred to Moore and Braga to follow any of those other directions.

Keep in mind that the first idea Moore and Braga had was to pit Kirk's Enterprise against Picard's Enterprise. The film's poster -- the two ships and the two captains squaring off -- would have had real marketing merit. But it ran into two problems. First, it would have been more expensive to make than Star Trek VI (and the studio's goal was to make a film that was cheaper than VI) since it would have had a massive cast to cope with. And second, they couldn't come up with a story that would paint both captains in an heroic light. Once they abandoned that idea, they came up with something smaller scale, and that idea was Generations.

Yes, they could have put Spock into the 24th-century part of the film. Or Scotty. It would have been contrived, but if that was a choice that Braga and Moore had made, they would have come up with some sort of justification for it. (I think it would have been interesting to have Scotty in just the prologue and Spock in just the 24th-century part of the film. That might have seemed like contrived.)

I think the reason that Moore and Braga didn't think of doing that is that they/Berman/Paramount wanted a film that was a Next Generation film and that stood on its own in those terms. I don't think the film does stand well on its own -- it's mired in backstory from the television series -- and it's possible that the writers recognized that. So even if they had thought about putting one of the 23rd-century survivors in the back half of the film, they might have thought they were over-egging the story with kisses to the past. But I don't think that the thought would have occurred to them because they were so close to the film, at least not until they got script notes back from Nimoy.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ That's a very good analysis of it. I remember the idea of the two ENTS pitched against each other and the producers explaining that they just couldn't get it to work because audiences wouldn't know how to root for.

The choice B&B made was, ultimately, a perfectly legitimate one and valid for the story they wanted to tell. My own rationale was that we didn't see Spock or McCoy on the bridge of the ENT-D when they appeared in TNG (I think Scotty did make it there). I always thought that having them or Kirk on it was the obvious thing to do for the baton-passing movie. But to each their own.

 

[BillJ]

No member of the TOS gang made it to the Enterprise-D bridge.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

^ That's a very good analysis of it. I remember the idea of the two ENTS pitched against each other and the producers explaining that they just couldn't get it to work because audiences wouldn't know how to root for.

This film could either have been awesome or a disaster. And no middle ground.

Berman later expressed a wish that he'd held back the "Yesterday's Enteprise" script to serve as a way of bringing the two crews together, but I'm not sure that it would have worked; fans would have wanted to see the real Picard and the real Data, not alternate dystopian versions of those characters.

I think "All Good Things..." would have worked as the basis for a two-crew film, as I discussed fifteen months ago.

The choice B&B made was, ultimately, a perfectly legitimate one and valid for the story they wanted to tell.

I don't fault Generations for the story it tells. The pieces are there, and I think it's generally effective in what it does, though it's not without its flaws. The main problem, I think, is that it's a curiously pessimistic film for a franchise that was never about pessimism. Kirk dies, the Enterprise is destroyed, Picard loses his family -- there's nothing hopeful about this film. What's ironic is that this film came at a time when Star Trek had never been higher in the public consciousness. Star Trek's future seemed limitless at the time, and yet this film seemed designed to close the doors.

My own rationale was that we didn't see Spock or McCoy on the bridge of the ENT-D when they appeared in TNG (I think Scotty did make it there). I always thought that having them or Kirk on it was the obvious thing to do for the baton-passing movie. But to each their own.

The funny thing is, I don't really look at Generations as a baton-passing film. Star Trek VI and "Unification" do that better, while Generations was just an excuse to tie off a loose end with a guest star that the weekly series couldn't afford.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^I'd agree that that's what we got with Generations and you're probably right that it's what B&B intended all along. But to me, the use of the word 'Generations', i.e. plural, implied at least something a little more evenly balanced. It was never going to be a 50/50 split of time between the crews, we all knew that Kirk's crew had had their farewell in TUC. But I think the use of the word Generations was a little misleading that way, albeit a good title.