I thought this was interesting, a positive review of Star Trek Generations, that discusses how some fans can sometimes favor canon nitpicking over good storytelling:
Interesting Star Trek: Generations Review that talks about good storytelling vs. canon nitpicking
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
And the reviewer himself would say that this review was just his subjective opinion.
I made it though 2 minutes and 12 seconds before the video got too annoying to continue.
And @Grant is right. GEN is just a bad story, partly because it was written off a checklist from studio execs (Have Kirk, have Klingons, have a humorous B-plot involving Data, etc.) and partly because so many specifics of the story are so vaguely defined.
What is the Nexus and what exactly can it do, other than what the screenwriters want it to do in any given scene? Does it take you to previous moments in your life, like Kirk, or does it take you to a Dream Life that you never actually had, like Picard? Why was an echo of Guinan left behind, while Soran was forcibly wrenched out of it, while Kirk stayed inside of it for the next 78 years, unaware of any time passing? Why does the echo of Guinan know enough about the Nexus to tell Picard how to find Kirk, but is unable to help Picard herself? Why is she there, except to serve as a convenient story device to tell Picard what to do and to give Whoopi Goldberg another scene in the movie? Why is the echo of Guinan unable to leave the Nexus, while Kirk and Picard can just waltz on out whenever they feel like it? And why and how to they come back to the exact point in time that they did? Was that by choice, or was that just where the Nexus happened to plop them out?
None of those are canon questions, just storytelling sense questions. A better screenplay would've given us a better idea of at least the basics of how all this stuff worked, so we could follow along with the story better and understand what the stakes were. But it didn't, so it's tough to care all that much. By contrast, a movie like Back to the Future tells you exactly what you need to know about how time travel works in that world, and exactly what Marty McFly has to do to get back home to 1985. And because it takes the time and care to set all of that up, you're much better able to appreciate all the payoffs when they come in the second half of the movie.
And @Grant is right. GEN is just a bad story, partly because it was written off a checklist from studio execs (Have Kirk, have Klingons, have a humorous B-plot involving Data, etc.) and partly because so many specifics of the story are so vaguely defined.
What is the Nexus and what exactly can it do, other than what the screenwriters want it to do in any given scene? Does it take you to previous moments in your life, like Kirk, or does it take you to a Dream Life that you never actually had, like Picard? Why was an echo of Guinan left behind, while Soran was forcibly wrenched out of it, while Kirk stayed inside of it for the next 78 years, unaware of any time passing? Why does the echo of Guinan know enough about the Nexus to tell Picard how to find Kirk, but is unable to help Picard herself? Why is she there, except to serve as a convenient story device to tell Picard what to do and to give Whoopi Goldberg another scene in the movie? Why is the echo of Guinan unable to leave the Nexus, while Kirk and Picard can just waltz on out whenever they feel like it? And why and how to they come back to the exact point in time that they did? Was that by choice, or was that just where the Nexus happened to plop them out?
None of those are canon questions, just storytelling sense questions. A better screenplay would've given us a better idea of at least the basics of how all this stuff worked, so we could follow along with the story better and understand what the stakes were. But it didn't, so it's tough to care all that much. By contrast, a movie like Back to the Future tells you exactly what you need to know about how time travel works in that world, and exactly what Marty McFly has to do to get back home to 1985. And because it takes the time and care to set all of that up, you're much better able to appreciate all the payoffs when they come in the second half of the movie.
Ugh, Renegade Cut, though this is one of the easier videos to sit through.
I think Generations is a disliked movie because, despite some of its ingredients and premise, it was still a very middling, underwhelming film to sit through.
I'd put it alongside Into Darkness quality wise, films that I don't hate with a passion and are competent with their character/action beats, but are just there (with Malcolm MacDowell and Bennedict Cumberbatch being OK as Rent-A-British Badguys).
I think Generations is a disliked movie because, despite some of its ingredients and premise, it was still a very middling, underwhelming film to sit through.
I'd put it alongside Into Darkness quality wise, films that I don't hate with a passion and are competent with their character/action beats, but are just there (with Malcolm MacDowell and Bennedict Cumberbatch being OK as Rent-A-British Badguys).
God, if that was one of their better videos, I'd hate to see a bad one.
Pretty much. One of the most disappointing Trek movies I've seen in the theater.
I'd put it alongside Into Darkness as a film that made me actively angry by the time I walked out of the theater. Both of them squandered enormous storytelling opportunities. I hate that William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy's final appearances as their trademark characters are both so lackluster and badly written. I wish they'd both left well enough alone and left Star Trek VI and ST09 as their respective swan songs.
He's an insufferable, extreme end SJW (check his critique on James Bond).
I can remember going "eh" at Generations and finding Into Darkness solid on first viewing. I never found them objectively bad, just not quite as good as the sum of their parts (with GEN's great dialogue/acting moments and ID's tense action), let down by uninspired story ideas at their core (though they're not quite as derivative and tired as Nemesis, as sanctimonious and dull as Insurrection, nor as cheesy and sleazy as The Final Frontier).
I see '09 and VI as triumphant final chapters, with their final, final roles in follow up weaker films being their epilogues.
You using "SJW" in a derogatory manner tells me WAY more about you than about him, none of it good.
Dear God, I'm far from a crazed Alt Righter, if that's what you mean, I won't say "SJW" in a disparaging term here again and apologise.
The way he expresses his views on freedom, protection from abuse, and non-exploitation of the vulnerable, although noble on principle, ironically ends up sounding very resentful, hypocritical, and dogmatic (to me).
EDIT - But a good point he does make in the video is that canon should be used more as a tool, not a trap.
Last edited:
I agree with the premise that good storytelling is more important than canon but on how many occasions do the two come into conflict? Most canon violations can be resolved with slightly tweaked dialogue that has no impact on the story at all. The excuse that good storytelling is more important is actually just the writer saying I didn't have time or I couldn't be bothered to do my research. Abrams attitude seems to be I didn't care about that stuff, so why should anybody else. The main problem with that attitude is that you alienate the chunk of your audience that DOES care and risk turning a good movie into a flawed movie or a mediocre movie into a terrible one.
Last edited:
Also making the setting too contradictory and inconsistent (like with S1 of DSCO) strains the immersion (and the believability of the setting as its own functional little word).
The Mr Plinkett RedLetterMedia review is the definitive Generations review. End of.
Just simple little things too. I have no major problem jazzing up the visuals or tweaking the alien make-up but for me it was Lorca casually transporting inside the ship. And not even that, but that nobody thought it was dangerous or unusual. Transporters were a plot device to get personnel from A to B and they should have tried to keep a firm lid on that from the start. We might have been spared Abrams interstellar portable transporters that we won't ever mention again. I do realise all sorts of aliens do all sorts of plot busting transportation but this was lazy storytelling too.
Last edited:
IMO, more entertaining and honest than his infamous PT teardowns, though Leon Thomas points out the problem of Plinkett adding the stock "crockery smash" sound effect when Picard puts down the piece of priceless artefact (even if it's added for comic effect and rightfully pointing out the lazy/rushed directing, making it look like Picard is thoughtlessly discarding the valuable item).
The comedic nature of the Plinkett reviews enhance how enjoyable they are to watch (and rewatch) but the analysis is razor sharp.
I'm in two minds about that Kurlan Naiskos - I tend to think the one casually discarded in Generations is probably a replicated copy Picard kept for display purposes and the original was gifted to a museum somewhere given how incredible an artifact it seemed to be.
Sorry if I leapt down your throat too quickly for that. I just have a low threshold for the people using "SJW" as a disparaging label, as I've dealt with a lot Comics Gate people online for the last few years. S'all good.
It makes me laugh. What kind of person thinks social justice is a bad thing? I suppose the kind of person whose views are anti-social? It's a very illogical insult.Sorry if I leapt down your throat too quickly for that. I just have a low threshold for the people using "SJW" as a disparaging label, as I've dealt with a lot Comics Gate people online for the last few years. S'all good.
You're right, it's worse.
Kidding, kidding.
I know you're joking!
It's really not, though. Taken on it's own merits, as a movie (and discarding Trekkie expectations and baggage), it's a flawed but entertaining sci-fi adventure movie. It has good performances, good themes, some good sci-fi concepts, great production values, beautiful cinematography, and a very underrated soundtrack. The story is flawed (not AWFUL...but flawed) and there are clearly some missed opportunities...but it isn't a stinker.
I find that Star Trek films are all relative within the franchise, and if you judge just about any of them independently, none are nearly as "good" nor as "bad" as we like to make them out to be. So, TWOK isn't nearly as "good" a film as we like to pretend. It's heavily contrived and there's a lot of stuff that makes absolutely no sense. On the other side, films like GEN and INS are not total garbage in the way we judge them either. They generally have plenty of good going for them, but they are disappointing as Star Trek films for whatever reason.
I'm not a huge fan of GEN. It's easily in my bottom 3. That said, all things being equal, it's FAR from a total failure. It has plenty of redeeming qualities that would elevate it above that status.
Similar threads
- Locked
