^ Well, that's all subjective, isn't it? I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't like his tenure at DW.
First Contact & Insurrection
- Thread starter CaptainMatt
- Start date
I did the 80s era is what I was used to seeing as a kid on PBS.
Like what? TNG essentially stuck to the Roddenberry-Piller formula for four seasons after finally finding it in Season Three; VOY spent seven seasons trying to be TNG in a smaller ship, and ENT spent two seasons trying to be TNG in the 22nd Century before actually taking some creative risks in Seasons Three and Four. The only series that actually took creative risks during Berman's tenure was DS9 -- and that was once Berman essentially let Ira Steven Behr have free reign over it.
That has more to do with standard Hollywood practice. He had a contract, after all -- they couldn't just throw him out, not without being in violation of contract.
Like making his TNG features action packed extravaganzas. But you know something, I grow tired of this debate. So I am bowing out for now.
There are plenty of haters of Colin Baker and Sly McCoy; hell, the show was cancelled in the 1980s.
I just think it goes back to the fact that TNG doesn't translate very well to the big-screen. First Contact felt like Generic Zombie Flick #682, an action film with a TNG skin.
In my mind, the most successful TNG film was Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
But that's not inherently against Roddenberry's "vision" (insofar as he had a vision). Gene produced plenty of action-adventure stories in his time.
ETA:
Interesting, since FC struck me as being TNG with a DS9 sensibility -- due, I suspect, to Ronald D. Moore's contributions to the script. Yeah, it was an action movie, and a variation on a zombie movie, but it was also very much about challenging yet reaffirming the idea of a brighter future and people who live up to the better angels of their nature, through both Picard's and Cochrane's arcs. (Picard's arc being one of a good man who almost succumbs to his worst impulses before being allowed to realize that his arrogant belief in his own "evolved sensibilities" were leading him towards some very un-evolved behaviors, at which point he shaped up and got his act together; Cochrane's arc being the classic "cynical man grows idealistic" arc.) To my mind, ST:FC is the only TNG film to really take creative risks.
(Well, okay, that's not fair. GEN did, too, but GEN's risks mostly didn't work, whereas FC's mostly did.)
So back to the original topic with a twist if I may?
Do the films take a nosedive after FC seeing as lot of you say dont worry about watching the films back to back as I had first planned?
What do you attribute the percieved failure of the film franchise with INS and NEM?
Is it truly that TNG just did not work or gel on the big screen and that the reason FC works so well is they took good risks and had a different sensibility to the rest?
Who, when seeing INS for the first time, thought they had been cheated when INS failed to deliver the same kind of story as FC?
Do the films take a nosedive after FC seeing as lot of you say dont worry about watching the films back to back as I had first planned?
What do you attribute the percieved failure of the film franchise with INS and NEM?
Is it truly that TNG just did not work or gel on the big screen and that the reason FC works so well is they took good risks and had a different sensibility to the rest?
Who, when seeing INS for the first time, thought they had been cheated when INS failed to deliver the same kind of story as FC?
I think the final two TNG films failed in general was because Stewart and Spiner had to much power and really gummed up the creative works.
First Contact works because it is a "generic zombie flick", it was the film most accessible to general audiences.
Generations succeeds and fails because of James T. Kirk. His presence was enough to get butts into theater seats, but the lackluster way they dealt with him killed repeat business.
Insurrection fails because it is just plain dumb. Why would you need to hide a spaceship from a bunch of Amish in a lake? Why would you land it at all? It just violates common sense and the film goes downhill from there. This is the only film I haven't viewed on Blu-ray, the illogical set-up still hurts my head to this day.
Nemesis fails because it's too insular and the motivation and plans of the villain make no sense. Shinzon makes Nero look like a damn genius. Though, to be fair, I actually like the work Tom Hardy does here, the highlight of the film.
I can see why they didn't want to repeat the tone of FC with its follow-up. Two grim, dark, action-adventure movies in a row may not have succeeded. So kudos for going for an upbeat, light-hearted fun movie. IIRC, they were aiming for a Voyage Home for the TNG crew.
Unfortunately, it just didn't work out as welll as TVH did. Somehow INS and NEM are actually less than the sum of their parts. INS has a great actor as the villain (two when you count Anthony Zerbe), some nice character interaction, a few decent action sequences and Picard doing his righteous facedown of corrupt superior officer bit. NEM has some decent action, continunity nods and character interaction...yet somehow, with each of them, I was left with a feeling of 'So what?'
For me, FC was the best of the TNG movies and holds its own with TWOK and TUC. Somehow, it all just came together and worked; it just had that undefinable quality or factor that its successors lacked.
Unfortunately, it just didn't work out as welll as TVH did. Somehow INS and NEM are actually less than the sum of their parts. INS has a great actor as the villain (two when you count Anthony Zerbe), some nice character interaction, a few decent action sequences and Picard doing his righteous facedown of corrupt superior officer bit. NEM has some decent action, continunity nods and character interaction...yet somehow, with each of them, I was left with a feeling of 'So what?'
For me, FC was the best of the TNG movies and holds its own with TWOK and TUC. Somehow, it all just came together and worked; it just had that undefinable quality or factor that its successors lacked.
FC had every bit the popularity of TNG as a TV series...and then some. It took an integral part of a character backstory and made it accessible to a new movie-going auidence. I have to say I never thought of the movie as a zombie of the week action flick or that that is why people swarmed to see it. But then I, like Picard, have my own history with the Borg.
But what got non-fans into the seats? It was the ads showing space battles and cybernetic zombies. Marketing can make or break a film and First Contact was marketed well. Go back and look at the ads for Star Trek 2009 another stellar marketing job that pushed the idea of an action flick first and a Star Trek movie second.
You know I do seem to remember the Borg being portrayed as interstellar zombies in the adverts on TV. One Borg looked so terrifying (I was not aware of the new makeup job) I nicknamed him a "monster Borg." So you have a point and it has been well made sir.
Well, according to Rick Berman in past interviews, they wanted these movies to be more stand-alone, non-serialized fare to more entice a general audience.
Watered down stories. And I will add a small budget that made them look like they were made on the cheap.
I think FC has it's own problems with story and whatnot, but overall overcame its shortcomings to make a fun adventure.
Cheated, yes. Story and production, they were doing better stuff on DS9 at the same time. Berman was even admitting in other Kees that they couldn't "out Borg the Borg" and that this film was purposefully made smaller in story and scope. Why, as a movie producer, would you ever admit something like that, true or not?
Yeah, cheated is a good word.
For me, fandom had already changed. I saw STs II, III and IV at huge gala preview and premiere nights, where at least a third of the 1000-strong audience was in ST costume, applauding each name in the opening credits and each actor's entrance.
ST V, I saw with a group of friends in a suburban cinema on opening night. In civvies. No one wanted to dress up. For ST VI, I was travelling in the US, but got to an Aussie sneak preview in Paramount's Sydney theatrette before departing. GEN and FC were suburban costumed affairs, but greatly scaled back from the amazing 80s. FC got good support from Paramount and there was a free cocktail party for key invited guests at a preview I attended.
INS was again a group of friends in a suburban cinema with a free ticket. NEM was at my local cinema with one friend on opening night. The cinema was almost deserted.
Back to ST 2009: There was a huge, red carpet gala premiere (at the Sydney Opera House; unable to secure one of the 200 tickets sold online for $200 each, the other 800 people were the cast, TV people and Australia's "A list") and free preview and paid opening nights, where at about a quarter of the 1000-strong audience was in ST costume or at least Trek Tshirts and pointy ears, applauding each name in the opening credits and each actor's entrance. Full Circle.
So, to answer your question: We walked out of INS saying, "Oh well, it was okay, see you next Trek movie then, I guess." Ho hum.
OK? I just spent the past two hours watching it and it was very good as both a story and production values. Berman might have been right and if so then I thank him for not trying to do something as dark as another Borg story. INS works and I enjoyed seeing it again, seeing the main cast fight against those who would violate the rights of innocent people was an astounding experience. I relished the experience true and true. So I never was anti-INS but now I am definitely pro it.
I often see this kind of criticism levelled at Insurrection/Nemesis - but honestly - I see nothing in either movie that gives the appearance/impression of a "Cheapo Studios Presents" type of production. They're both extremely well made and look perfectly "glossy" to my eye, on what I'd describe as "medium/average" size budgets.
Certainly, my idea of scaled back "dirt cheap" movies would be something like a Golan-Globus production - Superman IV: The Quest For Peace springs to mind.
Pehrhaps I enjoyed INS because I did NOt watch it straight after FC. But I enjoyed it nonetheless, which is something I did not believe I would do after reading all your replies. I am inclined to agree with Lokai of Cheron. The film holds up very well and does have a sort of "glossy" look to it. I love seeing the Enterprise-E soar in the battle sequences. The way it ended, too, was appealing, with the TNG TV theme playing as the closing credits began with the Enterprise flying by.
Similar threads
