Generations: Poor ending?

[t_smitts]

Fourteen years ago, when I saw Kirk die on screen, it might have been upsetting, but it really doesn't bother me anymore, nor does the loss of the Big "D".

What does bother me to this day is the forced smile on Picard's face at the end. He's lost his ship, his brother, his nephew (to this day, I think killing off Rene was unnecessary). He seems convinced that he will now be the last of the Picards and that kids aren't in the picture for him. He also just found Starfleet's most famous captain only to watch him die.

Are we really supposed to believe he'd be in good spirits after all that, giving Riker this whole speech about "it's not how long you live, but how you live"? I know you can't end a Star Trek movie on a downer (even TWOK with Spock dying didn't do that) but seriously! It's painful to even think about!

 

[A beaker full of death]

It's B&B's version of character development.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

What bugged me about the ending was that none of the crew seemed all that upset that the Enterprise had been destroyed. When the 1701 was blown up in TSFS Kirk and crew were obviously effected emotionally, you can see it on their faces as it burns up in the atmosphere of Genesis. But when the 1701-D gets destroyed Riker makes an offhand comment about having wanted a shot at the Captains chair and Picard says something to the effect of 'oh well, they'll build another one.'

 

[Chindogu]

It's B&B's version of character development.

Don't forget about Ron D. Moore! His name is on the script after all.

 

[Broccoli]

It's B&B's version of character development.

Don't forget about Ron D. Moore! His name is on the script after all.

Yeah...be he did nothing but good things for Trek...every bad thing with Generations was purely B&B. It is foolish to think otherwise.



Seriously, though. t_smitts, go check out Braga and Moore's commentary for Generations. It is a really good listen and they talk very frankly on things that they liked and didn't like with the film. After hearing them talk, it gave me a new perspective on the production of the movie.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Seriously, though. t_smitts, go check out Braga and Moore's commentary for Generations. It is a really good listen and they talk very frankly on things that they liked and didn't like with the film. After hearing them talk, it gave me a new perspective on the production of the movie.

I agree. They're very open about many of the faults in their script and how, in some cases, their hands were tied by requirements placed on them by higher-ups. I think if they had it to do over again they would have written a much different script.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Yeah, I really think that was probably the best commentary track of all ten movies (minus Insurrection, which didn't have one). They were just really frank about what worked and what didn't. Maybe it's the passage of time — they recorded the commentary at least a decade after the film was made, and Moore had moved on from Trek after his very short stint on Voyager, so in a way they probably both felt a bit freer to talk.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

It's B&B's version of character development.

Don't forget about Ron D. Moore! His name is on the script after all.

I love Ron D. Moore.

But I will never forgive him for his contributions in GEN.

Just horrible ...

 

[Mr. Fergy]

Paramount wanted to destroy an 8yr old ship and kill Kirk, nothing more. There was no reason behind either of these actions, IMHO.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

Paramount wanted to destroy an 8yr old ship and kill Kirk, nothing more. There was no reason behind either of these actions, IMHO.

Best answer ever.

Sadly, that doesn't help...

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Paramount wanted to destroy an 8yr old ship and kill Kirk, nothing more. There was no reason behind either of these actions, IMHO.

From what I remember of the commentary they also insisted on a "big villian" and the inclusion of Klingons.

 

[Jon1701]

The last act of that film is shit. Truly shit.

I honestly don't mind the movie right up to the point where the D crashes on the planet and then Picard goes into the Nexus and then Guinan appears on the merry go round and...zzzzzzz.....kirk's chopping wood....cooking eggs...horses...fight on a cliff...saucer section crashes.....hang on, i've seen this bit already haven't I?

I know there were a lot of fingers in the pie on this one, but Kirk's death is just rubbish. And the Nexus stuff just grates. Why Kirk would want to stay in there all day riding horses with some-bird-we've-never-heard-of-before makes no sense whatsover.
Kirk should have been the one to realise its a load of bollocks. It shouldn't need Picard to start following about. It doesnt even make sense. They even have to stick a Whoopi Goldberg voiceover of :

"From his point of view...he just got here too"

over the top of it.

I mean, how the fuck does Picard find Kirk anyway???

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I think one of the biggest weaknesses of the movie is that the Nexus is very ill-defined. The "rules" states about it don't make much sense. Moore and Braga admit as much in their commentary.

 

[darkshadow0001]

What bugged me about the ending was that none of the crew seemed all that upset that the Enterprise had been destroyed. When the 1701 was blown up in TSFS Kirk and crew were obviously effected emotionally, you can see it on their faces as it burns up in the atmosphere of Genesis. But when the 1701-D gets destroyed Riker makes an offhand comment about having wanted a shot at the Captains chair and Picard says something to the effect of 'oh well, they'll build another one.'

Maybe because it wasn't as easy to build starships in the 23rd century as it was in the 24th century. Maybe Kirk & crew were more emotionally attached to their ship then Picard & company. I remember Scotty always acting like the engine room was his second home... LaForge never really acted like that, it was more or less of a "job" to him. I think that's the difference.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Maybe because it wasn't as easy to build starships in the 23rd century as it was in the 24th century.

Somehow I doubt the reason Kirk and Crew were upset at the destruction of the 1701 was because it had been hard to build...

Maybe Kirk & crew were more emotionally attached to their ship then Picard & company. I remember Scotty always acting like the engine room was his second home... LaForge never really acted like that, it was more or less of a "job" to him. I think that's the difference.

Sure, I think the TOS was portrayed as being more openly emotionally attached to their ship. However, I find it hard to believe that having the ship they'd worked and lived on for 7+ years destroyed had zero emotional impact on them. It just doesn't ring true to me.

 

[LeadHead]

I thought that the upbeat nature of Picard at the end wasn't that bad or out of character. I thought that it was good that he was moving past some of the pain of what had happened. All things considered, things could have ended up much worse and Picard knew it. Originally everyone had been killed including the 230 million on Veridian 4. An event he and Kirk managed to avert, he had always thought until he entered the Nexus that Kirk was dead, so that wouldn't have been as big of a shock as it could have been.

As for his Brother and Nephew, he was probably still in a lot of pain over it but, that kind of pain doesn't need to hold you down every second. And there are 2 other factors to consider: 1. Picard had lost a ship before so it wasn't a new experience, he knew how to handle it better this time around. 2. If he was going to lose a ship, this was in many ways an ideal situation, half of the ship is still there and most of the crew survived.

 

[rocketscientist]

Fourteen years ago, when I saw Kirk die on screen, it might have been upsetting, but it really doesn't bother me anymore, nor does the loss of the Big "D".

What does bother me to this day is the forced smile on Picard's face at the end. He's lost his ship, his brother, his nephew (to this day, I think killing off Rene was unnecessary). He seems convinced that he will now be the last of the Picards and that kids aren't in the picture for him. He also just found Starfleet's most famous captain only to watch him die.

Are we really supposed to believe he'd be in good spirits after all that, giving Riker this whole speech about "it's not how long you live, but how you live"? I know you can't end a Star Trek movie on a downer (even TWOK with Spock dying didn't do that) but seriously! It's painful to even think about!

Y'know, that is a great observation. I haven't thought of that aspect of GEN that much in light of the other places where the final act pretty much failed.

You're right on the money, imo. Picard's reaction wasn't relatable. In fact, the whole crew's wasn't in light of the loss of the Ent-D. I truly think the death of the original Enterprise had as much impact as the death of Spock. They milked that scene for all its dramatic impact. The death of the Ent-D was great spectacle, but I truly don't remember being that surprised or shocked to see it happen, as it had all happened years earlier with the original. There really is not much comparison at all. The death of the original ship was the death of an old friend. The death of the Ent-D was the death of a ship.

As for Picard's reaction, you're right, it's not that human at all. I think that's just another example of GR's perfect people edict, showing how a "more evolved" SF captain like Picard handles his grief better than Kirk. I think it made Picard less relatable, like it did for some TNG episodes, but that's what they did.

 

[darkshadow0001]

Maybe because it wasn't as easy to build starships in the 23rd century as it was in the 24th century.

Somehow I doubt the reason Kirk and Crew were upset at the destruction of the 1701 was because it had been hard to build...

Maybe Kirk & crew were more emotionally attached to their ship then Picard & company. I remember Scotty always acting like the engine room was his second home... LaForge never really acted like that, it was more or less of a "job" to him. I think that's the difference.

Sure, I think the TOS was portrayed as being more openly emotionally attached to their ship. However, I find it hard to believe that having the ship they'd worked and lived on for 7+ years destroyed had zero emotional impact on them. It just doesn't ring true to me.

That was the thing about TNG that kind of bothered me. It was so emotion-less, that it was almost unbelievable. At least in DS9 and even Voyager some emotion was shown between the characters. I think DS9 and Voyager were more of a believable future then TNG due to the lack of emotion the characters portrayed. I realize that probably in the military to be trained to not to show emotion is a must, but not to show it at all I think is rediculous. I also wondered why Picard never showed emotion for Kirk's death, Kirk showed great emotion for Spock and his son's death. I also realize Kirk isn't anyway a friend or relative of Picard's, but he buried one of the most important captains in Starfleet history and didn't show one bloody teardrop! Damn him

 

[rocketscientist]

Maybe because it wasn't as easy to build starships in the 23rd century as it was in the 24th century.

Somehow I doubt the reason Kirk and Crew were upset at the destruction of the 1701 was because it had been hard to build...

Maybe Kirk & crew were more emotionally attached to their ship then Picard & company. I remember Scotty always acting like the engine room was his second home... LaForge never really acted like that, it was more or less of a "job" to him. I think that's the difference.

Sure, I think the TOS was portrayed as being more openly emotionally attached to their ship. However, I find it hard to believe that having the ship they'd worked and lived on for 7+ years destroyed had zero emotional impact on them. It just doesn't ring true to me.

That was the thing about TNG that kind of bothered me. It was so emotion-less, that it was almost unbelievable. At least in DS9 and even Voyager some emotion was shown between the characters. I think DS9 and Voyager were more of a believable future then TNG due to the lack of emotion the characters portrayed. I realize that probably in the military to be trained to not to show emotion is a must, but not to show it at all I think is rediculous. I also wondered why Picard never showed emotion for Kirk's death, Kirk showed great emotion for Spock and his son's death. I also realize Kirk isn't anyway a friend or relative of Picard's, but he buried one of the most important captains in Starfleet history and didn't show one bloody teardrop! Damn him

Well, I think Picard showed appropriate concern for Kirk. They were friends, not close friends, but they did bond in the Nexus and Kirk did ask Picard to call him Jim.

That said, I think it would've been more appropriate to have a funeral for Kirk beyond burying him under a cairn of stones. It could be interpreted that Picard just buried Kirk and didn't say a word about his involvement in stopping the Veridian III disaster at all, taking all the credit. Actually, he has a possible motivation for doing just that: he broke the temporal prime directive to return with Kirk to try to stop Soran all over again.

I really doubt that that was the case, though. Picard is too principled and honorable a guy to lie for his own self-interests.

The relative lack of emotion over the death of the Ent-D. though, that you pointed out is right on the ball. The original ST characters, paritcularly Kirk and Scotty, showed a lot of love and concern for the Enterprise. Picard and Geordi, not so much. It's just another difference between ST and TNG I guess. It's just another reason why I like the original characters more than the TNG ones (though I really like them too).