Is "Generations" Strictly a TNG Movie?

[NiteTrek]

They don't make stoppers big enough for holes that size

There's holes all through the movie.

1) Picard is always careful about not altering time lines throughout the series, but he has no trouble altering it in Generations. He goes back in time to prevent Soran from altering the path of the Nexus. Why is it ok this time?

2) Guinan tells Picard in the Nexus that he can go to any time he chooses (something like that) so why doesn't he just simply stop Soran at an earlier time period, instead of having to enlist Kirk's help right before the Nexus is about to hit the planet?

3) Now that I'm on a roll, the destruction of the Enterprise was a problem. The shield's frequencies displayed for all to see? That allowed the Klingon's to see the frequencies via Geordie's visor and therefore find a way to shoot through them. Weak, weak, weak. I worked on missile systems and secret info like frequencies is never displayed in the open, it's "coded" to prevent anyone that shouldn't know what they are to find out.

And so on.....

 

[zenophite]

^don't i know it.

Generations was the point where I stopped caring about trek.

 

[darkshadow0001]

They don't make stoppers big enough for holes that size

There's holes all through the movie.

1) Picard is always careful about not altering time lines throughout the series, but he has no trouble altering it in Generations. He goes back in time to prevent Soran from altering the path of the Nexus. Why is it ok this time?

2) Guinan tells Picard in the Nexus that he can go to any time he chooses (something like that) so why doesn't he just simply stop Soran at an earlier time period, instead of having to enlist Kirk's help right before the Nexus is about to hit the planet?

3) Now that I'm on a roll, the destruction of the Enterprise was a problem. The shield's frequencies displayed for all to see? That allowed the Klingon's to see the frequencies via Geordie's visor and therefore find a way to shoot through them. Weak, weak, weak. I worked on missile systems and secret info like frequencies is never displayed in the open, it's "coded" to prevent anyone that shouldn't know what they are to find out.

And so on.....

1) I wasn't aware of that, but he was trying to save millions of lives, because he realized what Soren was doing was wrong.

2) Because he needed "help", obviously we see that he couldn't accomplish the task by himself. Guinan couldn't help, so this was the key to bring in Kirk.

3) Well, we all can't be perfect It was only a clean, fun feature-film.

The only thing that really bothered me was the way Data acted when he received his emotion chip. Way to laughable and nerdy acting... other then that I enjoy watching Generations.

 

[Broccoli]

They don't make stoppers big enough for holes that size

There's holes all through the movie.

1) Picard is always careful about not altering time lines throughout the series, but he has no trouble altering it in Generations. He goes back in time to prevent Soran from altering the path of the Nexus. Why is it ok this time?

2) Guinan tells Picard in the Nexus that he can go to any time he chooses (something like that) so why doesn't he just simply stop Soran at an earlier time period, instead of having to enlist Kirk's help right before the Nexus is about to hit the planet?

3) Now that I'm on a roll, the destruction of the Enterprise was a problem. The shield's frequencies displayed for all to see? That allowed the Klingon's to see the frequencies via Geordie's visor and therefore find a way to shoot through them. Weak, weak, weak. I worked on missile systems and secret info like frequencies is never displayed in the open, it's "coded" to prevent anyone that shouldn't know what they are to find out.

And so on.....

Good points. However, I think in the case of number 1, Picard's thinking (or at least mine) would be, "Hey, it just happened five minutes ago. It's not like it's going to have long-lasting ramifications if I return to the point where I left from."

 

[NiteTrek]

Good points. However, I think in the case of number 1, Picard's thinking (or at least mine) would be, "Hey, it just happened five minutes ago. It's not like it's going to have long-lasting ramifications if I return to the point where I left from."

But it DID have long lasting ramifications. A whole planet full of people was initially destroyed. Picard changed all that. While it may have been a noble cause in his eyes, he did go back and change the timeline.

 

[Jim Steele]

Star Trek 6 served as far greater and more dignified passing of the torch, albeit a subtle one.

 

[cardinal biggles]

And TNG was a phenomenal success in its own right by 1994. There was no need for a torch-passing movie apart from Rick Berman's superiors at Paramount thinking there was a need for one.

 

[NiteTrek]

And TNG was a phenomenal success in its own right by 1994.

If I remember correctly, TNG was the #1 show in syndication at the time of its cancellation. I think it should have gone on for 10 years but I guess TPTB wanted to move it to the big screen.

 

[rocketscientist]

And TNG was a phenomenal success in its own right by 1994. There was no need for a torch-passing movie apart from Rick Berman's superiors at Paramount thinking there was a need for one.

I agree that it wasn't necessary to incoporate Kirk in GEN, but I liked it, because it gave Kirk an epilogue. Moore liked it because he wanted to write Kirk's final experience, death.

They needed something big for this movie and that, and to a lesser extent, the destruction of the Ent-D, were it.

Actually, Kirk's death overshadowed the death of the Ent-D imo. In fact, the death of the original Enterprise had a lot more impact, as much as Spock's death for me, than the death of the Ent-D. That just didn't do much for me at all. It was cool to look at, but I didn't feel like I was witnessing the death of a friend. I just felt, well, that was cool, I guess they're going to get a new ship.

 

[NiteTrek]

I agree that it wasn't necessary to incoporate Kirk in GEN, but I liked it, because it gave Kirk an epilogue. Moore liked it because he wanted to write Kirk's final experience, death.

I didn't care for the way Kirk died. Falling down on a broken bridge just didn't seem heroic enough. I heard his original death scene had him shot in the back by Soran but initial screenings didn't go over well.

Kirk was a legend, his death should have been GLORIOUS!

 

[rocketscientist]

I agree that it wasn't necessary to incoporate Kirk in GEN, but I liked it, because it gave Kirk an epilogue. Moore liked it because he wanted to write Kirk's final experience, death.

I didn't care for the way Kirk died. Falling down on a broken bridge just didn't seem heroic enough. I heard his original death scene had him shot in the back by Soran but initial screenings didn't go over well.

Kirk was a legend, his death should have been GLORIOUS!

Hey, I agree with you. Kirk's death should've been a lot better. GEN really does end with a fizzle. What's more, Ron Moore admitted that they blew Kirk's death. He wanted it to be as seminal as Spock's. Further, the audiences who saw the original version of Kirk's death hated it. I've seen the footage (which has no music or re-dubbed sound) on youtube and imo, it's actually worse than what we got with the collapsing bridge. I know that's not much compensation, but there it is. I do think the theatrical version with the bridge goes over better than Kirk taking down Soran and then stupidly not making sure he was disarmed.

But, again, you're right, they still needed a better ending to that movie with a better death for Kirk. No argument there from me.

 

[rocketscientist]

As we've seen with Star Trek '09 and particularly The Voyage Home, Nimoy likes a hand in all aspects of the movie right from the start. He considers himself a film-maker instead of a jobbing Director. They were never seriously going to be able to throw the completed Generations script at him, and say make that work for us. If the story idea wasn't his, he'd need to be smoozed in endless meetings and have it altered enough, for it to feel like it was. A Paramount Exec practically had to beg Nimoy to do The Motion Picture afterall. Most of the time, that demanding attitude works and translates into real quality onscreen. Shatner's certainly no pushover but he generally doesn't see beyond how his own character fits into the story.

I don't think Nimoy has a problem with other people coming up with the ideas and the script. On the contrary, he's never written a ST screenplay. Also, he's a greed to do ST XI and he's just an actor there.

From what I've read, he had real problems with the script for GEN. He asked for substantial rewrites on it and Berman told him there was no time for that, as they were already deep in pre-production and they didn't have the budget to accomodate changing course, so Nimoy turned down appearing and directing GEN. Berman had to settle with a TNG episode director for the first TNG film.

 

[rocketscientist]

If I'm not mistaken, Moore and Braga have said that it was Paramount, rather than Berman, who insisted that it be clear that this was a TNG film and not a TOS or combination film. It was the brass who placed limits on them on how long the TOS cast could appear in the beginning of the film, and that only Kirk could come back for the end.

Are you sure about that? All I know, from what I read, is that either Paramount or Berman insisted that the first TNG film incorporate some, or all of the ST characters. Berman thought it should be Kirk, as they'd already had McCoy, Sarek, Spock, and Scotty in TNG. I never heard that there were any specified time limits on how long or how much the original ST characters could be onscreen. I imagine it was implicit that this, being the first TNG film, that Picard would have more screen time than Kirk.

Well, whatever the rules are, I don't think it worked out well at all. The beginning with Kirk on the Ent-B, imo, is the best part of the movie, at least in terms of action, while the end of the film fizzles. It just wasn't a good screenplay imo. The idea was great though.

With regards to the way the characters were written, I think it was the influence of Ron Moore that caused Kirk's character to be written so well. Though Moore was a TNG writer, he had long been a rabid TOS fan since well before TNG ever existed. I think he relished the opportunity to write for such an icon and childhood hero as Kirk, and he did a splendid job of it.

Totally! Well said!

I agree that Scotty and Chekov were not well written, due to the fact that the parts were not written for those characters. It was the rushed Paramount-imposed schedule, I'm sure, that prevented Moore and Braga from doing the extensive rewrite of the opening scenes that would have been necessary in order to make the parts uniquely Scotty and Chekov. As it was, they had to just switch the names in the script and basically leave it at that.

I think they tried to fix it, but it wasn't a perfect fit, especially for Scotty.

I personally think it's a shame that Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley turned down the acting jobs in this film. I know they both argued that the roles were essentially glorified cameos that were not integral to the script and therefore didn't want to do it. But I think they missed how impactful their characters would have been to the opening of the film. Kirk's apparent death on the Enterprise-B would have packed far more of an emotional wallop if it were Spock and McCoy who were there to witness and react to it, rather than Scotty and Chekov.

Sure, Scotty and Chekov were old colleages who greately respected Kirk. But we'd never seen any evidence of a real friendship between them on a personal level. Spock and McCoy were beyond even friends to Kirk - they were his family. They had discussed death. They had even been through it together with Spock. Their appearance would have been more than a simple cameo, it would have been an emotional core to the TOS part of the film. And that's why I think it's sad they declined.

Well, I think Scotty and Chekov worked in that regard just fine. You're right that they weren't as close to Kirk as Spock and McCoy, but they were his friends. Scotty always maintained a bit of distance from Kirk out of respect I think, kind of like an enlisted man wrt an officer. He did call him Jim once in the series, though (Mirror Mirror), and there was definitely some mutual affection between the two of them. There was also more distance between Kirk and Chekov.

But, again, I agree with you, they weren't as close to Kirk as Spock and McCoy. I still think they worked out fine though in GEN in that regard.

 

[Cyke101]

And that's why I think it's sad they declined.

In my opinion, I think it's the reverse: be sad for such a crap script, don't be sad for Nimoy and Kelley for standing up for themselves and calling it what it is. Playing two iconic characters, I think it's reasonable for them to say no and give good reason for it. If they're coming back to the characters they love, they better do it for a good reason and not just for a a mere paycheck. Berman wasn't going to have any of that 'heart,' so Nimoy and Kelley dropped out.

I mean, both Moore and Braga outright said their script was crap. With that in mind, I'd say blame the writing, not the actors.

Keep in mind, with three minutes on screen, McCoy and Spock would be wasted in Generations. There's more to them than just saying hi.

 

[FordSVT]

It was a TNG movie that featured some TOS characters in an effort to bridge the "old" movie franchise with the "new". Simple as that.

 

[Ziz]

A film about passing the torch should have included the whole crew and should have had an entirely different story.
It's hard to believe that this is the script that won out - for film that supposedly focuses on the meeting of the captains it was a total non-event.

I read (or maybe saw an interview) somewhere where Moore and Braga said "If we had known at the time that TNG would go to 7 seasons and GEN, we would have saved 'Yesterday's Enterprise' and made that the first TNG film instead. That would have been a much better concept to bring both full casts together."

 

[rocketscientist]

A film about passing the torch should have included the whole crew and should have had an entirely different story.
It's hard to believe that this is the script that won out - for film that supposedly focuses on the meeting of the captains it was a total non-event.

I read (or maybe saw an interview) somewhere where Moore and Braga said "If we had known at the time that TNG would go to 7 seasons and GEN, we would have saved 'Yesterday's Enterprise' and made that the first TNG film instead. That would have been a much better concept to bring both full casts together."

Replacing the Ent-C with the Ent-A on it's way back to Earth? Yeah, that could've been really cool.

I personally think, and this is just my opinion, that Moore and Braga could've come up with something better if they'd been given more time and had fewer strictures placed on them by Berman and the studio. I think there was a better way to make that idea of bringing Kirk to the TNG time and then killing him off work.

 

[rocketscientist]

Here's another reason why I think GEN is both a TNG movie and a quasi-original ST movie. It follows TUC and the events portrayed right in the beginning with a retired Kirk, Scotty, and Chekov logically follow from the previous events in that movie. Thus, it can be looked at as both a sequel to the original (numbered) ST films as well as the first TNG film. It's both, imo.

 

[EEE]

Actually, Kirk's death overshadowed the death of the Ent-D imo. In fact, the death of the original Enterprise had a lot more impact, as much as Spock's death for me, than the death of the Ent-D. That just didn't do much for me at all. It was cool to look at, but I didn't feel like I was witnessing the death of a friend. I just felt, well, that was cool, I guess they're going to get a new ship.

Interesting... I hated the death of the Enterprise in III (a "fizzle? For THE lady of the shows?"). But I liked the death of the D just fine. Perhaps because it never was a friend to me? (It was a major reason I never could get into TNG). I think the D died better than she lived, while THE Enterprise lived better than she died.

As for the original question... No doubt. It was a TNG movie. Albeit one that was upstaged by TOS.

 

[rocketscientist]

Actually, Kirk's death overshadowed the death of the Ent-D imo. In fact, the death of the original Enterprise had a lot more impact, as much as Spock's death for me, than the death of the Ent-D. That just didn't do much for me at all. It was cool to look at, but I didn't feel like I was witnessing the death of a friend. I just felt, well, that was cool, I guess they're going to get a new ship.

Interesting... I hated the death of the Enterprise in III (a "fizzle? For THE lady of the shows?"). But I liked the death of the D just fine. Perhaps because it never was a friend to me? (It was a major reason I never could get into TNG). I think the D died better than she lived, while THE Enterprise lived better than she died.

As for the original question... No doubt. It was a TNG movie. Albeit one that was upstaged by TOS.

I can understand that. The point is, like me, you felt more for the original (THE) starship Enterprise than the D (a ship named after the Enterprise).

I liked the D a lot but it never ever felt alive like the original Enterprise did. It's probably just childhood nostalgia on my part or maybe it was the way that ship was portrayed in the series. For example, it had a lot more history with Pike, then Kirk, then Decker, then Kirk, then Spock commaning it. The original Enterprise was in ST time over 40-something years old when Kirk scuttled it in TSFS (that looked like it was right out of Horatio Hornblower). The Ent-D was only about 7 years old and, from TNG, it didn't seem to go "where no man has gone before," as much as the original had. In most TNG episodes, it looked to me that they came across the unknown mostly through circumstance. They were typically on a diplomatic, military, or support mission. The original Enterprise seemed ot be exploring unknown space a lot more. It's kind of weird. You have Patrick Stewart (essentially) repeating Shatner's monolog specifying the mission of the Enterprise-D, yet, from what was portrayred, it didn't seem like they were on a mission of exploring the unknown like the original Enterprise seemed to spend much of its time doing. In reference to this, in the ST encyclopedia, the Okudas say the Ent-D's mission was one of exploration and diplomacy. I'd say diplomacy, support, and defense were what it spent most of its time doing.