Picards family dying in Generations
- Thread starter john titor
- Start date
john titor
Captain
Can't really see what funny with it but each to his own
Dude, chill. I wasn't irritated; just asked a simple question. Post your question on the Trek General Forum and I'm sure you'll get the answers you seek.
Axiom said:
Oh, my - is this what Doug Otte was implying? That those of us who didn't think this belonged in the movie aren't reading enough? That I just don't have enough appreciation for Grrrrreat Literature?
Well, sorry, that's just nonsense, and thanks to Axiom for pointing it out. I'm not going to go on and on about how literate I am - you're just going to have to take my word for it that I am at least fairly well read. The reason that it doesn't seem to belong in the movie isn't the fault of the viewers - it's the fault of the folks who made the movie and who didn't do anything to make it fit into the movie. Those of you who theorize that it's supposed to give Picard more of a reason to stay in the Nexus yatta yatta yatta may very well be right. Sounds pretty good to me! But all I can say is that TPTB should have used one of you as a consultant because what you've written is much clearer than what is in the movie.
If this is supposed to be what we learn from that scene, they shouldn't have thrown it in there with no context, no explanation, nothing. That's what makes it a "cheap shot," as Axiom put it. It's the difference between genuine tragedy and just plain old emotionalism. The only reason it had any impact at all was because of Stewart - the rest of the movie gave him no help at all.
And besides, why does killing off Picard's nephew - someone from a younger generation - emphasize the "Generations" theme anyway? The Nexus theory fits in with that much better than any sort of passing-of-the-torch theme, IMO.
So. It's a bad scene. It didn't have to be, but it is. But Stewart was fantastic, and I really do like the movie in spite of its flaws.
You know, it was pretty hackneyed. At the time I overlooked it with my excitement for it - a Trek movie, a TNG Trek movie, one with both captains...but considering it all these years later and through the lens of the themes in the movie, it doesn't sit well with me.
The Nexus should have been enough of a draw once inside it without the cheap "we'll give you back your nephew we just killed". And what about his brother? What about his sister-in-law and her pain? No subspace letter of condolence or shot of them at his table for Christmas dinner. And that was, what, 5 years since we saw Rene? He should have been a teenager by then, not the sweet little boy dreamer from "Family".
They went overboard with the theme of "generations." The Nexus seemed all the more cheaper...a huckster of a cosmic phenomenon...it couldn't entice you to stay in its "blanket of joy" unless you were just sucker-punched by grief - Soran and Guinan just losing their homeworld and families too. You'd want to get the hell out of its oily embrace out of resentment of it alone, never mind needing to properly consider/mourn those you lost or saving your own soul.
The Nexus should have been enough of a draw once inside it without the cheap "we'll give you back your nephew we just killed". And what about his brother? What about his sister-in-law and her pain? No subspace letter of condolence or shot of them at his table for Christmas dinner. And that was, what, 5 years since we saw Rene? He should have been a teenager by then, not the sweet little boy dreamer from "Family".
They went overboard with the theme of "generations." The Nexus seemed all the more cheaper...a huckster of a cosmic phenomenon...it couldn't entice you to stay in its "blanket of joy" unless you were just sucker-punched by grief - Soran and Guinan just losing their homeworld and families too. You'd want to get the hell out of its oily embrace out of resentment of it alone, never mind needing to properly consider/mourn those you lost or saving your own soul.
Oh boy. I was in a bad mood last night when I posted my rant. I apologize for its rudeness. However, I stand by my main point based upon the people who don't get it.
First, I have to agree that the script to Generations was ham-handed and awkward. We were bludgeoned by the main theme about passing the torch from one generation to the next. However, and I'm writing this as a Trek fan of over 35 years - Trek has never been very deep on a thematic or symbolic level. It's sort of equivalent to grocery store fiction. I would never equate Trek with great literature, like Anthony Burgess, Salman Rushdie, Virginia Woolf, et al.
Here's the Cliff Notes version of why I think the scriptwriters killed Picard's family:
1) he lost all sense of purpose because he saw his own family (and legacy) ending with him;
2) Kirk also felt at loose ends before entering the Nexus;
3) Neither of them found solace (after brief dream-lives) in the Nexus;
4) Picard and Kirk fighting together against Soran helped them regain their sense of purpose and realize that their efforts in the real world, as opposed to a dream life in the Nexus (even if it meant death), had an impact on the universe and generations to come.
Get it?
Curmudgeonly,
Doug
First, I have to agree that the script to Generations was ham-handed and awkward. We were bludgeoned by the main theme about passing the torch from one generation to the next. However, and I'm writing this as a Trek fan of over 35 years - Trek has never been very deep on a thematic or symbolic level. It's sort of equivalent to grocery store fiction. I would never equate Trek with great literature, like Anthony Burgess, Salman Rushdie, Virginia Woolf, et al.
Here's the Cliff Notes version of why I think the scriptwriters killed Picard's family:
1) he lost all sense of purpose because he saw his own family (and legacy) ending with him;
2) Kirk also felt at loose ends before entering the Nexus;
3) Neither of them found solace (after brief dream-lives) in the Nexus;
4) Picard and Kirk fighting together against Soran helped them regain their sense of purpose and realize that their efforts in the real world, as opposed to a dream life in the Nexus (even if it meant death), had an impact on the universe and generations to come.
Get it?
Curmudgeonly,
Doug
Doug, people aren't asking what's the point which was intended by the writers. As has been pointed out, it was blindingly obvious. What is being asked is what was the point when viewed in relation to the rest of the movie which then practically never makes mention of their deaths again?
^ Yeah, exactly. I mean, I can see how it might have made sense. But given the context of the movie as we saw it, it just doesn't, at least not as far as I can see. It's just plopped down in the middle of the plot like a dirt clod on a highway. When I asked "What does it mean?" I was hoping somebody could point out something that I had missed in the movie. I can come up with theories all by myself. 
OK, it's becoming clear that I'm the dense one (happens often - just ask my wife!). Kirk and Kate, I thought I just answered your questions in my previous post.
I've also been accused of being a poor communicator, but I can't think of how else to express it. I thought my bullet points above were pretty clear.
Kirk: why does something need to be mentioned again in a movie when it's already served its purpose?
Kate: No theories involved, but see my bullet points for specific plot points explaining WHY they killed off his family.
Doug
PS Maybe MeanJoePhaser's and SchwEnt's posts on the first page of this thread explain it better.
I've also been accused of being a poor communicator, but I can't think of how else to express it. I thought my bullet points above were pretty clear.
Kirk: why does something need to be mentioned again in a movie when it's already served its purpose?
Kate: No theories involved, but see my bullet points for specific plot points explaining WHY they killed off his family.
Doug
PS Maybe MeanJoePhaser's and SchwEnt's posts on the first page of this thread explain it better.
The question is...did it "serve its purpose"? I don't think it served any purpose at all, though I agree that it ought to have.
I believe I understand what you're saying, Doug (and I think I understood MeanJoe and SchwEnt, too). Where we disagree, I guess, is in how effectively this scenario was used.
Could it have been used to convey that Picard had lost all sense or purpose or whatever? Sure. Did it? I don't think so. I think that due either to bad editing or writing, it ended up serving no purpose at all. But that's purely my opinion, of course.
I believe I understand what you're saying, Doug (and I think I understood MeanJoe and SchwEnt, too). Where we disagree, I guess, is in how effectively this scenario was used.
Could it have been used to convey that Picard had lost all sense or purpose or whatever? Sure. Did it? I don't think so. I think that due either to bad editing or writing, it ended up serving no purpose at all. But that's purely my opinion, of course.
Last edited:
I never saw the point of the family death idea. If had had some real purpose then it should also have been mentioned towards the end of the movie to some relevance of Picards loss.
What's sad is, Robert and René probably didn't have to die. AFAIK, Robert was a technophobe (didn't even allow replicators in the home) so they didn't have access to fire suppression systems that surely exist. I would guess that in the 24th century there's little risk of dying in a fire at home. Most people probably have enough tech to prevent it. But Robert wouldn't let them... 
Buit is it too much to ask that there actually be a coherent theme? What exactly was the theme of Generations? That time passes and people die, because we're only mortal, so we must embrace the time we have? No wait, it's passing the torch from one generation to the next. No wait, it's about seizing life as it is, bruises, skinned knees and all. No wait, according to Moore back before the movie premiered, it was about having fun! That's right, he actually said this.
Generations is a thematic mess, something Moore and Braga all but admitted on the blu-ray commentary.
THat said, for me it's the movie with the most heart, and the most promise. It could have been a pretty classic TNG character piece if only it had some focus and... well, if were pretty much rewritten from scratch.
If that's the case, it should have been Kirk in the Nexus trying to convince Picard to go back, not the other way around. Picard was the one who lose his purpose, Kirk was the one who had a driving purpose, to go out there and make a difference. We see him at the beginning of the film unhappy in retirement, having to stay out of the way, but wanting desperately to take control, take the captain's role he always played, and continue to make a difference. Once inside the Nexus we find out his greatest wish is... a quiet retirement with a woman he knew years before. Say whah? And Picard, the guy who lost all purpose, somehow magically finds it and he's the one who has to convince Kirk to back. It's like the writers carefully set up the two lead characters at the beginning of the film and them both inexpicably do complete 180s. They set things up they never paid off. Bad writing.
No, he wanted to be the Captain again. Shouldn't that have been his Nexus fantasy?
Moore and Braga both joke about how they tried to do way too much with their first movie and both admit they weren't successful. I completely agree.
Similar threads
