It wouldn't kill Paramount to make a 5th TNG movie, or will it?

[DonIago]

I thought killing Data off in NEM was a patent rip-off of killing Spock in TWoK. Minus any emotion associated with it. How convenient that they just found an android who looks just like Data!

It's an unfortunate misconception that B-4 was only introduced to allow Data a way to come back to life. He was actually put into the story to parallel the Picard/Shinzon relationship, and an essential part of the story was establishing that B-4 couldn't grow into a being like Data, that he lacked the capacity for growth and learning that Data had, and that was what made him a flawed reflection just as Shinzon's inability to let himself grow made him a flawed reflection of Picard. Throughout the movie, it was driven home that B-4 was just too limited, that all Data's attempts to download memories into him or make him smarter just plain didn't work. The ending where B-4 sang the song wasn't really meant to say "Hey, Data will be resurrected, no problem," but merely to suggest that maybe some small bit of Data's efforts had rubbed off on B-4 and he'd be able to grow at least a little bit, serving as Data's legacy. But it didn't really work as it was intended to, because just about everyone sees it as something that was only done as a back door for resurrecting Data. And that's because they remember what happened in TWOK/TSFS.

Except that the bit at the end of TWOK about Spock not really being dead so long as we remember him, and the final shot of the torpedo tube on the surface, wasn't really intended as a way of bringing him back either. It was just something the filmmakers added as an afterthought when test audiences found the ending too depressing. It was just meant to give the ending a more hopeful tone, as was the ending of NEM. It wasn't until later, when they were planning TSFS, that they decided to build on the potential implicit in TWOK's ending.

At the time I don't think I saw the ending of TWoK as an attempt to set things up to bring Spock back, though for those who go in knowing how things will turn out I could understand why it would seem that way. I do think it was and is one of the best examples of how to kill a primary character in a movie franchise though. Its power even after repeated viewings is largely undiminished IMO. Even knowing Spock will come back doesn't really lessen the impact, because the TOS crew have to make serious sacrifices to get to that point.

I don't feel the Data-B4 dynamic successfully mirrored the Picard-Shinzon dynamic, largely because while Shinzon is unable to overcome his shortcomings in the end, it's a choice on his part (and I have to admit if I hadn't seen Tom Hardy in other films I might have ended up grossly underestimating his acting chops). B4 has no such choice; he's a victim of his design/programming. If the goal wasn't to make us think that B4 might "become" Data to some degree, then I think having B4 sing the song was a misstep, and one glaring enough that it shouldn't have made it to final script. It may be a misconception that B4 was a set-up as a Data successor, but I can't blame anyone for drawing that conclusion based on the evidence, and it's complicated by the significant and generally unfortunate similarities between NEM and TWoK. I don't think I actively thought B4 would become Data II (in fact I don't think Data would have downloaded his memories if he believed that was a likely outcome), but it still cheapened Dats's death to have even a partial copy available.

I don't quite know how Dats's death could have been handled with more resonance, but I know that as portrayed I find it sorely lacking. Lal's death gets to me, even Lore's death I find somewhat sad (could Lore have ever overcome his deficiencies? We'll never know...). Data's death...not so much. Much like the destruction of the E-D in GEN I suppose, there's too many contrivances put into place to generate the desired outcome as well.

 

[number6]

But then, Nicholas Meyer didn't know a thing about Star Trek before he came onboard, and most people think he did a pretty good job with it (though I don't particularly care for his interpretation).

But he did his homework. Just like Harve Bennett did. And Robert Wise.

Ironic, considering that John Logan was a self professed fan. His screenplay would seem to indicate that he understood Star Trek the least out of the writers of the film franchise with GR coming in a distant second. There are certain parts of that movie that served no purpose and the movie lacked soul. That said, it looked great. If they only had a story and got rid of the Data/B4 subplot and that laughable dune buggy scene, the film would have been pretty good.

 

[Broccoli]

I recall someone saying in this thread about the whole TNG cast being asked if they wanted to return for Enterprise finale and only Franks, Sirtis, and Spiner said they wanted to return... I was watching this one video on YouTube where Spiner said it would take him at least an hour each morning to get the pale makeup put on his face and hands, and an hour in the evening to get it removed. Maybe he didn't feel like going through that when "These are the Voyages" was being made, so he agreed to just provide the commvoice dialogue. And if that's the case, I don't blame him.

But I would have liked to see what Geordi and Data would've looked like in "These are the Voyages" if they physically returned.

I don't know how much of that is true given the story they were trying to present in TATV. Adding all the characters would have been overkill.

I suspect Spiner did the voice cameo likely because it was easy, he was still on a good working relationship with the Trek powers that be, and Spiner has stated that he really liked Enterprise.

I'm kind of surprised they didn't do a voice cameo for Geordi. Burton was still on a good working relationship with the producers and had appeared as an older version of Geordi on Voyager - though that was an episode he directed, iirc (I say voice cameo because Burton's appearance is very, very different than when he looked like Geordi while Sirtis and Frakes can fake it a little better [though, not by much]).

 

[Christopher]

Ironic, considering that John Logan was a self professed fan. His screenplay would seem to indicate that he understood Star Trek the least out of the writers of the film franchise with GR coming in a distant second.

In Hollywood feature films, it's never safe to assume that the credited scriptwriter is solely or primarily responsible for what ends up onscreen. Writers have no clout in the business unless they produce or direct the films they write. For instance, Graham Yost is the sole credited writer of Speed, but only the plot is Yost's; virtually every line of dialogue in the film was written by uncredited script doctor Joss Whedon. Conversely, Whedon is the sole credited writer of the original 1992 Buffy the Vampire Slayer film, but the final product is a distorted travesty of what he wrote. In features, a script is seen as merely a starting point, and it's subject to heavy revision by the director, the producers, the actors, the editor, etc.

So it's hard to say how much of what ended up onscreen in Nemesis was actually John Logan's words and ideas and how much of it was reworked by Stuart Baird or others.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

That TUC was made even after that abomination known as TFF means that TNG still has a chance.

Except TOS had Star Trek IV going for it. I don't think Insurection was that popular.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TNG has no chance of being a movie at this point. None.

 

[Dukhat]

TNG has no chance of being a movie at this point. None.

And I doubt it even has a chance as a future TV series either.

 

[indolover]

A 5th TNG movie? Bringing Data back is no problem, if given good writing.

but I cannot see it. Sir Patrick Stewart doesn't want to play Picard again, as understandly action hero First Contact/Starship Mine-esque roles are not his thing now due to age. I reckon an animated series is best, we can at least hear their voices and there are no stunts or physical work just to speak into a microphone.

 

[Harvey]

Ironic, considering that John Logan was a self professed fan. His screenplay would seem to indicate that he understood Star Trek the least out of the writers of the film franchise with GR coming in a distant second.

In Hollywood feature films, it's never safe to assume that the credited scriptwriter is solely or primarily responsible for what ends up onscreen. Writers have no clout in the business unless they produce or direct the films they write. For instance, Graham Yost is the sole credited writer of Speed, but only the plot is Yost's; virtually every line of dialogue in the film was written by uncredited script doctor Joss Whedon. Conversely, Whedon is the sole credited writer of the original 1992 Buffy the Vampire Slayer film, but the final product is a distorted travesty of what he wrote. In features, a script is seen as merely a starting point, and it's subject to heavy revision by the director, the producers, the actors, the editor, etc.

So it's hard to say how much of what ended up onscreen in Nemesis was actually John Logan's words and ideas and how much of it was reworked by Stuart Baird or others.

Although scripts get re-worked all the time, I don't think any word that Logan was significantly re-written has ever emerged. In fact, an earlier draft of the screenplay that leaked is more or less what appears on screen, minus the deleted scenes and a few odd details (like young Picard having hair!).

 

[Christopher]

^Well, okay. Personally I didn't think the script showed any fundamental lack of understanding of Trek; a few continuity details were inconsistent, but 99% of moviegoers wouldn't know or care about that.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

TNG has no chance of being a movie at this point. None.

And I doubt it even has a chance as a future TV series either.

The characters simply aren't worth recasting. And I can't honestly say that the DS9 characters aren't either, despite being my favorite series. The next series should forge ahead with original characters.

 

[gottacook]

Personally I didn't think the script [of Nemesis] showed any fundamental lack of understanding of Trek...

With all respect, this statement mystifies me: If in your judgment the script of Nemesis did show a fundamental understanding of Trek, then which scripts for Trek movies or episodes (if any) do you think didn't meet such a standard?

(Please note that I ask this without having read a single Trek novel since Spock Must Die, which I bought the week it came out, when I was 13. That is, I'm aware of the Titan novels and all the other various novel series mentioned at this site, but have no idea to what extent their Trek-verisimilitude - in my judgment or in anyone else's - might vary.)

 

[sonak]

TNG has no chance of being a movie at this point. None.

And I doubt it even has a chance as a future TV series either.

The characters simply aren't worth recasting. And I can't honestly say that the DS9 characters aren't either, despite being my favorite series. The next series should forge ahead with original characters.

what's with how cool it's become to knock TNG on these boards now? I don't know how one could make a statement like "there's no chance of there being another TNG movie at this point" when obscure shows and movies from decades ago are constantly being rebooted these days and TNG has a much bigger role in pop culture than a lot of stuff that's coming out?

TNG was immensely popular back during its run, by far the most succesful of any of the Trek TV series.

Right now the TOS reboot is very successful.
So, what are they just going to keep endlessly rebooting the same characters in new film series? I doubt it. It won't take a genius for them to come up with the next logical step of a TNG reboot instead.

Nemesis has created a false impression that the TNG film series overall was some huge failure.

 

[Broccoli]

And I doubt it even has a chance as a future TV series either.

The characters simply aren't worth recasting. And I can't honestly say that the DS9 characters aren't either, despite being my favorite series. The next series should forge ahead with original characters.

what's with how cool it's become to knock TNG on these boards now? I don't know how one could make a statement like "there's no chance of there being another TNG movie at this point" when obscure shows and movies from decades ago are constantly being rebooted these days and TNG has a much bigger role in pop culture than a lot of stuff that's coming out?

TNG was immensely popular back during its run, by far the most succesful of any of the Trek TV series.

Right now the TOS reboot is very successful.
So, what are they just going to keep endlessly rebooting the same characters in new film series? I doubt it. It won't take a genius for them to come up with the next logical step of a TNG reboot instead.

Nemesis has created a false impression that the TNG film series overall was some huge failure.

I think it is more along the lines of there is no chance there will be a fifth TNG movie with the TNG cast playing the TNG characters.

 

[gottacook]

Nemesis has created a false impression that the TNG film series overall was some huge failure.

Possibly this is exactly what happened, but if so, why? One reason might be that 4 years had passed since Insurrection; that is, the series might have progressed beyond Nemesis if it had been released at the end of 2000 or early summer '01, even if it had premiered as badly as it did in December '02.

Until the 4-year gap that preceded Nemesis, the interval between Trek movies was never longer than 2 1/2 years, either during the original six-film series or during the new series that began with Generations (there was a 3-year interval between TUC and GEN). Perhaps the disappointing results of TFF were easier to get past - that is, a decision to proceed with a sixth film was easier to make - because the films had been released on a more-or-less regular schedule since December 1979.

If this theory holds any water, then by contrast, after Nemesis failed, there was much less impetus to consider making another TNG-cast movie that would wrap up the series nicely - something equivalent to TUC - because of the extended pre-NEM gap.

(I'm well aware that other factors must have played a role, too - such as Voyager fatigue, because that series was seen as just a variant of TNG.)

 

[BillJ]

TNG was immensely popular back during its run, by far the most succesful of any of the Trek TV series.

No matter how popular TNG may have been, Star Trek in the eyes of the general public has always been Kirk and Spock.

I'm also not sure I'd want a rebooted TNG. In order for it to be generally relevant you'd have to go with much younger actors in an action movie which would drop the utopian elements that made TNG what it was. Would it really be TNG if it bears no resemblance to the TV show?

 

[Christopher]

Personally I didn't think the script [of Nemesis] showed any fundamental lack of understanding of Trek...

With all respect, this statement mystifies me: If in your judgment the script of Nemesis did show a fundamental understanding of Trek, then which scripts for Trek movies or episodes (if any) do you think didn't meet such a standard?

That's an unfair question, since the terms haven't even been defined. I don't even know what's meant by "fundamental lack of understanding" in this critique of NEM. If it's simply a matter of facts and continuity, there are certainly other films that have contained worse continuity errors (TWOK is loaded with them), and that's the most superficial possible level for judging the worth of a story. If it's a matter of characterizations or something else, then it's probably subjective to talk about "understanding." Different members of the audience for a text will inevitably interpret and understand it in their own individual ways, as will different creators, and while one fan may disagree with a given creator's interpretation of the text, that doesn't mean everyone will.

Personally, I thought NEM understood what Star Trek is about very well. It told a story that wasn't just about explosions and spectacle but that had a philosophical core, an examination of the human condition and what it means to strive for self-improvement. It focused on a personal, emotional interaction between the captain and his antagonist rather than just a physical or event-driven one. It showed its Starfleet hero sincerely trying to inspire the best in his antagonist, and succeeding in building a new bond of trust with a longtime foe (the Romulans, in the person of Donatra). When it did show combat, it showed its hero fighting through intelligence and strategy, solving the problems with his mind rather than merely brute force. It depicted loss but ended on a note of hope. All those things are what Star Trek is about at its heart, and make NEM feel to me like a very successful ST movie, despite missteps like the pointless dune-buggy chase and the random-particle-of-the-week superweapon.

You may disagree with that, may have a different "understanding" of what Star Trek is about, but that's the nature of personal taste, the nature of fiction.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't know how one could make a statement like "there's no chance of there being another TNG movie at this point"

Because TNG is a link in a chain called Star Trek and further links have been forged. It's done.

Oh, in ten or twenty years someone might decide to resurrect and recast some of the TNG characters for some version of Star Trek...but another TNG-centric movie featuring the original TNG actors playing the existing versions of their characters is out of the question.

 

[Yevetha]

It would be nice if Patrick Stewart would show up in one of the new movies.

 

[DonIago]

They can call it Generations 2...

I do wonder how frakked the timeline will be by the time of TNG though. Entirely unrecognizable, or only significantly different?