More of the Star Trek movies should been connected to the TV shows

[The Overlord]

Two of the best original Star Trek movies are Wrath of Khan and First Contact and they are sequels to episodes of the Star Trek TV shows.

Its a bit of shame of they didn't have some more movies that were connected to the TV show. In Star Trek V, Spock suddenly has a brother, who is never mentioned again after that movie. The Ba'ku and Son'a show up out of no where in Star trek Insurrection and are barely, if ever, mentioned after that movie, it seems like it would have been better to pick up some thread from the TV Show. Likewise Nemesis would have been better if it had featured prominent Romulans from the past, like Sela and Tomalak and made it about the conflict that was brewing between the Federation and the Romulan Empire through out TNG, instead having that conflict got side lined by a clone of Picard and some Space Orcs.

What do you think? Is there any plot threads from TOS and TNG that would have worked well in the movies?

 

[BillJ]

I think the fear is that if you go to the well too often, people will simply quit paying. Which they did with TNG anyway.

You put Spock in a TNG movie and then it's no longer about TNG. Put Sela in there and general audiences are going to wonder how such a terrible actress got a gig in a major motion picture.

You have to be new and fresh to keep a franchise going, you can't just keep going back and lifting elements from the source material. Plus, it simply looks lazy.

 

[The Overlord]

I think the fear is that if you go to the well too often, people will simply quit paying. Which they did with TNG anyway.

You put Spock in a TNG movie and then it's no longer about TNG. Put Sela in there and general audiences are going to wonder how such a terrible actress got a gig in a major motion picture.

You have to be new and fresh to keep a franchise going, you can't just keep going back and lifting elements from the source material. Plus, it simply looks lazy.

It all depends how its handled, while both Wrath of Khan and First Contact were sequels to TV episodes, both they were written in a way you could enjoy them without seeing the episodes. To me those were more enjoyable stories then that side adventure in Star Trek Insurrection that never gets mentioned again.

Tomalak should have at least been involved in Nemesis and it should have been about a conflict between the Federation and the Romulan Empire, a plot point that was hinted through out TNG. Having the plot be hijacked by a Picard clone and some Space Orcs who come out of nowhere, doesn't seem like a good finale for TNG.

Star Trek 6 wasn't a sequel to any episode, but it did pick up plot threads from TOS, TNG and the previous movies, Nemesis should have done something similar.

 

[BillJ]

I simply think TNG wasn't cut out for the big screen, at least without some serious retooling. First Contact felt like a zombie action flick with a Trek coat of paint over it.

Star Trek was an action-adventure compared to The Next Generation, that was more talky and slower paced. This isn't a slam at TNG, just a fact of where its priorities were in storytelling. I've long said the best TNG movie is Star Trek: The Motion Picture. But there really isn't room for films like that in today's sci-fi market, which is unfortunate.

The problems TNG faced on the big screen were caused by the fact it didn't fit the genre that they were trying to sell it as, not that they didn't bring random parts from the small screen to the big. Every time I see First Contact, the first thing I'm reminded of is how lacking it is in big ideas compare to episodes like Q, Who? and The Best of Both Worlds. But, as in all things, your mileage may vary.

 

[Christopher]

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because two of the best-received Trek movies were followups to episodes of the series, that doesn't mean that was the reason they turned out well. Heck, the Voyager episode "False Profits" was a sequel to the TNG episode "The Price," but that didn't make it a particularly good episode. Same with "Flashback," which was a sequel/tie-in to The Undiscovered Country, but was nonetheless a pretty mediocre episode.

Adding familiar Romulans to Nemesis wouldn't have made any difference, because the feature films were not made only or primarily for established fans of the show. In order for a movie to succeed, it has to appeal to a much broader audience, including people who didn't watch the shows. So throwing in random continuity references to minor characters like Tomalak would have no meaningful impact on a film's quality or success (and don't get me started on the nightmarish continuity tangle that was Sela -- explaining her backstory already dragged "Redemption, Part 2" to a halt with no adequate payoff, and doing so for novice viewers in a feature film would be far more pointless). Would The Undiscovered Country have been better with Kang instead of Chang? The average moviegoer wouldn't have cared about the distinction.

 

[The Overlord]

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because two of the best-received Trek movies were followups to episodes of the series, that doesn't mean that was the reason they turned out well. Heck, the Voyager episode "False Profits" was a sequel to the TNG episode "The Price," but that didn't make it a particularly good episode. Same with "Flashback," which was a sequel/tie-in to The Undiscovered Country, but was nonetheless a pretty mediocre episode.

Adding familiar Romulans to Nemesis wouldn't have made any difference, because the feature films were not made only or primarily for established fans of the show. In order for a movie to succeed, it has to appeal to a much broader audience, including people who didn't watch the shows. So throwing in random continuity references to minor characters like Tomalak would have no meaningful impact on a film's quality or success (and don't get me started on the nightmarish continuity tangle that was Sela -- explaining her backstory already dragged "Redemption, Part 2" to a halt with no adequate payoff, and doing so for novice viewers in a feature film would be far more pointless). Would The Undiscovered Country have been better with Kang instead of Chang? The average moviegoer wouldn't have cared about the distinction.

Perhaps not, but Tomalak would have been a better character to use then Shinzon. They could have hinted at Tomalak and Picard's past, two captains who faced each other in the past, who now have either a final conflict or two old enemies having to work together to solve a crisis. Even if you haven't seen the episodes with Tomalak, just hinting at the past in a movie could make for an interesting character dynamic, much more then some evil clone of Picard who just comes out of nowhere.

 

[JarodRussell]

The problem is the lack of interconnection. The TOS films have a wonderful core consisting of TWOK, TSFS, TVH and TUC.

The TNG films are totally standalone. No character development is transported into the next film. It's like the previous films didn't happen at all.

And the formula was always the same for 3 of the 4 TNG films, First Contact standing out of the bunch. But in GEN, INS and NEM, it ALWAYS is:

- Plot device is introduced.
- TNG characters are at a totally random event when they get the call for a mission.
- Picard and Data share their thoughts about humanity.
- The bad guy has a doomsday device.
- Picard kills the bad guy.
- The doomsday device explodes.

The TNG films would have been better, more interesting, and at the end of the day more successful had there been an interconnecting storyline.

And yeah, NOT having the Dominion War was a big mistake. Jem'Hadar and Cardassians on the big screen on a big budget... that would have been great.

 

[Christopher]

Perhaps not, but Tomalak would have been a better character to use then Shinzon. They could have hinted at Tomalak and Picard's past, two captains who faced each other in the past, who now have either a final conflict or two old enemies having to work together to solve a crisis.

I really don't think so. Tomalak never really was much of a character. He was just a bad-guy-of-the-week who appeared in only four episodes, one of which was as a hologram and one of which was a mere cameo. Sure, he was played by a likeable and effective actor, but he had no personality to speak of beyond "generic scheming Romulan," and there was no reason to see him as someone Picard had any significant "past" with. You're mistaking nostalgia for story substance.

And "final conflict" or "work together to solve a crisis" are pretty ordinary plot ideas. Shinzon served as both a mirror for Picard, allowing philosophical ruminations about the degree to which we're shaped by choice and life experience versus intrinisc nature, and as a symbolic son for Picard, someone he was motivated to reach out to and try to guide and nurture, but whose resentment for the shadow cast by his famous "father" made him unwilling to accept the offering. That's a much richer basis for a character relationship than "some guy Picard talked to on a viewscreen a few times."

 

[BillJ]

Aside from Future Imperfect were Stewart and Katsulas ever on the same stage together?

 

[The Overlord]

Perhaps not, but Tomalak would have been a better character to use then Shinzon. They could have hinted at Tomalak and Picard's past, two captains who faced each other in the past, who now have either a final conflict or two old enemies having to work together to solve a crisis.

I really don't think so. Tomalak never really was much of a character. He was just a bad-guy-of-the-week who appeared in only four episodes, one of which was as a hologram and one of which was a mere cameo. Sure, he was played by a likeable and effective actor, but he had no personality to speak of beyond "generic scheming Romulan," and there was no reason to see him as someone Picard had any significant "past" with. You're mistaking nostalgia for story substance.

And "final conflict" or "work together to solve a crisis" are pretty ordinary plot ideas. Shinzon served as both a mirror for Picard, allowing philosophical ruminations about the degree to which we're shaped by choice and life experience versus intrinisc nature, and as a symbolic son for Picard, someone he was motivated to reach out to and try to guide and nurture, but whose resentment for the shadow cast by his famous "father" made him unwilling to accept the offering. That's a much richer basis for a character relationship than "some guy Picard talked to on a viewscreen a few times."

And Khan was just the villain of the week back in Space seed and look what they did with him in Wrath of Khan. Kor was one of many Klingon captains Kirk faced in TOS, but he was further developed in DS9.

Shinzon was a badly written character, so he didn't serve as a mirror for Picard. He felt like a dime store Lex Luthor, not a true reflection of what Picard could have been. Shinzon's motives for wanting to destroy Earth are so ill defined and convoluted that he seems like a generic Doomsday villain, not an evil version.An evil clone of Picard should have a twisted version of Picard's, like wanting to conquer the universe because he feels like he can make it a better place and feeling the Prime directive was allowing less developed alien worlds to suffer. That seems more like an evil version of Picard then Shinzon, who's motives kept on changing through out the film. Tomalak may have not been the most developed character ever, but he wasn't annoying like Shinzon was and really an evil clone villain is pretty cliched itself. Shinzon just being an ambitious Romulan commander would have been better and less convoluted.

 

[BillJ]

Shinzon was a badly written character...

I actually thought Tom Hardy did a solid job with the material written. If the TNG gang had played their characters with half the energy Hardy did, Nemesis would have been a much better film.

Writing is the foundation, but it's only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to a production.

 

[The Overlord]

Shinzon was a badly written character...

I actually thought Tom Hardy did a solid job with the material written. If the TNG gang had played their characters with half the energy Hardy did, Nemesis would have been a much better film.

Writing is the foundation, but it's only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to a production.

I'm not blaming the actor, Lord knows that hardy is a good actor and tried to do his best with the cartoonish villain they gave him, but Good Lord, Shinzon was so badly written that Hardy was wasted in the role. That makes the whole affair more sad then anything else. Bad movies can have good performances, some people liked Michael Chiklis as the Thing in the Fantastic Four movies, those movies are still bad. Good acting can only go so far to redeem a bad script.

Khan wanted to kill Kirk because blamed Kirk for the death of his wife. There, that is a simple, but effective way to show why Khan hates Kirk and it builds on previous continuity. Compare that to the overly convoluted to Shinzon, they are not effective in explaining why he does the things he is doing during the movie. Some writers seem to confuse convulsion with cleverness.

 

[SonicRanger]

I wish that the god being in TFF was Gary Mitchell or some twisted remnant of him.

 

[F. King Daniel]

In Star Trek V, Spock suddenly has a brother, who is never mentioned again after that movie.

Kirk also suddenly spawned a brother (played by William Shatner with a fake 'tache), who existed for only one episode - "Operation: Annihilate"

So well remembered is Kirk's brother that his scenes were cut from JJ Abrams' movie.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Khan wanted to kill Kirk because blamed Kirk for the death of his wife. There, that is a simple, but effective way to show why Khan hates Kirk and it builds on previous continuity.

Does it really? Marla McGivers in "Space Seed" was so totally meek and pathetic, I find it impossible to believe Khan would give a shit when she dropped dead.

 

[SchwEnt]

As the OP says, but HOW should the movies be more "connected" to the shows?

Throwing in a cameo character appearance here and there? Name-dropping in the script? More direct follow-up plots to series stories? There are many levels of connection.

You can have a movie with more than a dozen nods to the fanbase, all wholly insignificant to the script, and it won't make the movie any better or worse.

You can have a movie with great acting and a wonderful script and excellent writing and very little connection to the prior series and it can be a hit.

So to the OPs point, what kind of series connection should there be? Mainly plot points? Recurring characters?

 

[Harvey]

Kirk also suddenly spawned a brother (played by William Shatner with a fake 'tache), who existed for only one episode - "Operation: Annihilate"

Sam is first mentioned, in fact, in the episode "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" It's a nice moment of continuity that I didn't notice until re-watching the series recently.

As for the films being better connected to the television series, I thought the films with the original crew did a good job at this. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock repeats the auto-destruct sequence from "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" and has Mark Lenard reprise his role of Sarek from "Journey to Babel." Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home uses the time travel method established in "The Naked Time" and used in other episodes, and not only has Mark Lenard back, but has Jane Wyatt as Amanda as well.

 

[R. Star]

Tomaluk getting a part in Nemesis would have been nice, but as written he's not going to save that movie. The Romulans... for a movie that was supposed to be about them, really didn't have much to do with the movie.

Even all the existing plot element of Nemesis could have been thrown together more coherently. First, it makes zero sense that this xenophobic slave race of warriors is going to follow Shinzon. They might look on him fondly and the human sharing their plight, but he's never going to be an equal.

Have the Viceroy be the guy calling the shots with his pet human at his side. So fond of his loyal little pet, he even calls in Picard for the blood transfusion thing. Then you can have a story about Picard reaching out to Shinzon's humanity vs his Reman conditioning and tormentors. That would be a powerful tale, and you can still have your silly video game style shoot em down scenes and the big fight at the end.

And if you want you could sub Tomalak for Donatra, not like she contributed much to the movie anyways. That would have been neat on the level of two advesaries working together against a common enemy.

This doesn't address all the flaws in the movie, like why this race of warriors aren't capable of basic marksmanship, how they built this super death ship out of rocks and pickaxes and the such, but if it's telling a good story you can overlook such things.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes in some respects TWOK served as a sequel to a TOS episode "Space Seed" but wasn't it about Cpt Ahab (Kahn) trying to get revenge on the white whale (Kirk). Even FC used this as well with Picard(Ahab) trying to get revenge on the Borg (White Whale).