If Star Trek had only had seven movies....
- Thread starter JamesSmith
- Start date
I think we have a difference of opinion, everyone. 
My beef with the emotion chip wasn't that it made Data act silly. Rather, it's that it hit the fast-forward button on 7 years of character development. The evolution of Data from "Encounter at Farpoint" to "All Good Things..." was steady, and measured, and what made it more interesting was that he was going to do it on his own. The emotion chip took that progression and instead of moving it from A to B to C, it moved it from C to R in a single scene.
So it's bad enough that they introduced it. Then, in First Contact we find out that Data can turn it off at will. Gee, no more having to learn how to deal with your emotions in high-stress situations! Isn't that convenient? Then, in Insurrection, we find out that the chip can be popped out and left in his sock drawer. So much for emotions being a permanent part of Data's life. And in Nemesis, well, they didn't even bother addressing it. The movies really did a lot of damage to Data's character, despite him being a heavy focus of all four stories.
fra-gee-lay summed it up for me.
And I referenced the destruction of the Enterprise-D because they thought it wasn't a stylish enough ship to be in movies, so they had it destroyed.
And Falcor5, I'd have to disagree. I thought everyone was againts their character with the exception of Patrick Stewart who did fantastic even with a weak script and story. And what about Kirk? He would blatently want to be on the bridge of the Enterprise and not in some barn that we've never seen or ever will again.
And I referenced the destruction of the Enterprise-D because they thought it wasn't a stylish enough ship to be in movies, so they had it destroyed.
And Falcor5, I'd have to disagree. I thought everyone was againts their character with the exception of Patrick Stewart who did fantastic even with a weak script and story. And what about Kirk? He would blatently want to be on the bridge of the Enterprise and not in some barn that we've never seen or ever will again.
It would have ended up pissing me off because I'd be missing three movies I love...
Someone give Wookie a Sherlock Holmes award.I think we have a difference of opinion, everyone.
Bend Cat Blue
Ensign
If Star Trek had only seven movies, then DS9 is cancelled after season 4 and Voyager is cancelled after season 3, there is no Enterprise.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Not much.
After the first four movies, almost nothing that happened in the movie series would've affected the franchise. I'll get to the "almost" in two paragraphs. The success of the first four movies led to TNG. The fifth and sixth movies wouldn't change the existence of TNG or the subsequent series. For this reason, I consider I-IV to be Primary Movies and V-X to be Secondary.
TNG was ended partially ended so they could make movies and partially because it was decided seven seasons was more than enough for syndication. Take away the movies as an enticement for ending TNG and it might've motviated Paramount to continue TNG. Except Paramount wanted to have UPN, a Star Trek series to anchor it, and it's easier to have a new series than one that's seven years old. Irgo, TNG still would've ended, movies or not, because it would would be too much trouble to have TNG, DS9, and VOY running at the same time.
FC's popularity might've influenced the decision to have ENT set backward in time. In fact, I think it might've been a big influence. The other major influence would've been The Phantom Menace showing they don't have to keep moving the timeline forward. So, the only difference ending the movies after Generations might've made is with ENT but it seems a little dicey. I think The Phantom Menace had more to do with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why? DS9 and VOY were already in motion before Generations even opened in the theaters. What exactly about First Contact and Insurrection helped keep DS9 and VOY on the air?
I've sometimes thought about this alternate history:
The Star Trek: The Next Generation cast was all under contract for an eighth season.
Imagine that Berman had decided to make an eighth season of TNG, ending in May 1995, instead of ending TNG in May 1994 and debuting Generations in November of that year?
There still could have been a seventh original cast film in '94. Maybe Shatner's The Ashes of Eden. Maybe something else entirely.
Then there could have been a crossover film in '96, in time for the 30th anniversary.
There probably wouldn't have been a Star Trek: Voyager in this alternate history, at least not until early 1996 at the earliest.
Yeah, i felt Nemesis was a big let down compared to Generations even with all that movie's flaws.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
UPN was set to launch in January 1995 and Paramount wanted to anchor it with a new Star Trek series. I don't think anything, short of UPN not existing, would've delayed Voyager.
Wasn't Voyager on the WB originally? Then it moved to UPN for the last 2 seasons?
Voyager was picked up on other TV stations in markets that didn't have a UPN station. When I lived in Lancaster, PA, the first season was carried on the local NBC affiliate (and broadcast in the wee small hours of the evening); by the fall of 1995 there was a UPN affiliate in nearby Lebanon.
It's possible that's what you were thinking of.
It's possible that's what you were thinking of.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
^ He might also be thinking of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer which started on WB and then moved to UPN for its last two seasons.
Though it is possible he watched Voyager on a non-UPN station. Unfortunately, with those ads and promos, no one who watched Voyager on UPN could ever forget what channel it was on.
Though it is possible he watched Voyager on a non-UPN station. Unfortunately, with those ads and promos, no one who watched Voyager on UPN could ever forget what channel it was on.
That's true, I forgot about Buffy's move to UPN. But I can't imagine ever confusing the two shows themselves.
