star trek generations
- Thread starter spockfan101
- Start date
Yeah I can't believe Frakes agreed to do that scene. In 5 minutes it took William Riker, a brilliant, cool headed officer, one the best in starfleet, a man who had defeated the seemingly unstoppable Borg when all seemed lost, and turned him into an incompetent moron who lost his cool at the first shot and basically picked the worst choice of every decisions that were made in losing the ship.
Shatner or Nimoy NEVER would have agreed to film a scene like that.
Money talks, dignity walks.
Not always. Shatner, for all his faults, would never have let a scene like that, where the character becomes a complete moron, fly. Yeah you can say in TWOK he didn't raise shields when reliant approached and that was a big mistake. But he made one and he redeemed himself by making lots of other smart moves. There were at least 5 or 6 key decisions for Riker to make and he picked the worst choice for all of them. He didn't even save the day like kirk did with the prefix code. It was data and worf who saved everyone from being killed.
Hell Nimoy threw hissy fits on several occasions on TOS when he thought a scene made Spock stupid.
Frakes.....7 years of building a strong and brilliant character in combat gone in 5 minutes, no problem, lets roll.
It's definitely a character assassination, there's no question about that.
As we were discussing over in the TNG section of the forum just the other day, one of the most frustrating things about GENS is what it does to all of the TNG characters. Nobody in the TNG cast comes out of it looking like Big Damn Heroes, which one assumes is what you want the guys who are taking the franchise forward to be. FIRST CONTACT is much better at showing us what these characters are truly made of, but I wonder if it was too little, too late by then? First impressions, and all that. Even Kirk's original death, before they reshot the ending of the movie, was a damp squib, and utterly unheroic (shot in the back by Soran). Makes me wonder if the guys making the movie even knew what they were doing.
When Riker says to Picard at the end of the movie, "Gee, I wish the ship hadn't been blown to bits, I always thought I'd get to command her one day", instead of feeling sympathy for him, I'm always like "Well, maybe if you hadn't just destroyed her with such an Epic Fail of grand proportions, then you might've had your chance dumbass, but as it is... DENIED."
As we were discussing over in the TNG section of the forum just the other day, one of the most frustrating things about GENS is what it does to all of the TNG characters. Nobody in the TNG cast comes out of it looking like Big Damn Heroes, which one assumes is what you want the guys who are taking the franchise forward to be. FIRST CONTACT is much better at showing us what these characters are truly made of, but I wonder if it was too little, too late by then? First impressions, and all that. Even Kirk's original death, before they reshot the ending of the movie, was a damp squib, and utterly unheroic (shot in the back by Soran). Makes me wonder if the guys making the movie even knew what they were doing.
When Riker says to Picard at the end of the movie, "Gee, I wish the ship hadn't been blown to bits, I always thought I'd get to command her one day", instead of feeling sympathy for him, I'm always like "Well, maybe if you hadn't just destroyed her with such an Epic Fail of grand proportions, then you might've had your chance dumbass, but as it is... DENIED."
You'd think he'd have survived something so trivial as that. :\
As we were discussing over in the TNG section of the forum just the other day, one of the most frustrating things about GENS is what it does to all of the TNG characters. Nobody in the TNG cast comes out of it looking like Big Damn Heroes, which one assumes is what you want the guys who are taking the franchise forward to be. FIRST CONTACT is much better at showing us what these characters are truly made of, but I wonder if it was too little, too late by then? First impressions, and all that. Even Kirk's original death, before they reshot the ending of the movie, was a damp squib, and utterly unheroic (shot in the back by Soran). Makes me wonder if the guys making the movie even knew what they were doing.
When Riker says to Picard at the end of the movie, "Gee, I wish the ship hadn't been blown to bits, I always thought I'd get to command her one day", instead of feeling sympathy for him, I'm always like "Well, maybe if you hadn't just destroyed her with such an Epic Fail of grand proportions, then you might've had your chance dumbass, but as it is... DENIED."
One of the strangest things about Generations is the way that, for a film that's intended to launch a series of films, it's all about endings. "All Good Things" brings the series to a close, but in such a way that the audience knows that these characters will go on doing things. "The sky is the limit" and all that. Generations, on the other hand, closes everything down. The ship is destroyed, Picard's family is lost, the ongoing mission comes to an end. Generations, strangely, is about finality. Even the funereal lighting of the Enterprise interiors contributes to that sense. Everything positive that the television series ended with, the film tears down and leaves ashes in its wake.
Frankly, I'm not sure that the film series really recovered from that.
I'm in the middle of a rewatch.
On the E-B bridge, Scotty asks Kirk, "Finding retirement a bit lonely?"
Fast forward.
Picard is mourning his brother and nephew, and he says that he is the last of the Picards.
Inside the Nexus, they both experience what might have been. But they both realize that what might have been is not what they truly wanted. That's how they are able to leave with no ill effect.
Since, as Guinan explains, time has no meaning in the Nexus they are able to go anywhere, any time, the energy ribbon has been. That's how they are able to go to Veridian III at the exact time they need.
It's not as big a stretch as some seem to think. It's just Star Trek.
On the E-B bridge, Scotty asks Kirk, "Finding retirement a bit lonely?"
Fast forward.
Picard is mourning his brother and nephew, and he says that he is the last of the Picards.
Inside the Nexus, they both experience what might have been. But they both realize that what might have been is not what they truly wanted. That's how they are able to leave with no ill effect.
Since, as Guinan explains, time has no meaning in the Nexus they are able to go anywhere, any time, the energy ribbon has been. That's how they are able to go to Veridian III at the exact time they need.
It's not as big a stretch as some seem to think. It's just Star Trek.
Didn't First Contact do better than Generations, domestically and internationally, adjusted for inflation and not, financially as well as critically?
That would seem to indicate recovery, no?
I phrased that badly. What I meant was that I'm not sure the film series ever found its footing after that. Or a reason to be. That's what I meant by the "never really recovered" thought.
I don't particularly care either. I was just pointing out that it was an odd thing for Soran to say, since taken at face value, it makes no sense for him to ask that. It's just one of many things in the film that make no sense. Case in point:
But that's not how Guinan described the Nexus experience.
That's quite different than what we saw. It basically makes Guinan look like an idiot.
She didn't say anything about being limited only to where the Nexus has been (although it would have made more sense if she had). She only says that they can go anywhere, any time. Which means that technically Picard could have gone back and saved his brother and nephew, and then arrested Soran before he even blew up the Amargosa star.
Man, people go to a lot of trouble to not understand a movie. 
Man, people go to a lot of trouble to not understand a movie.
It gets harder with each viewing.
Man, people go to a lot of trouble to not understand a movie.
That's an issue with having access to the film 24/7. In the old days you saw a film thought "that was pretty good" and maybe saw it a few more times in the theater. Or "that sucked" and didn't bother to see it again. Then it was gone except for coming on TV once in a while. So you often didn't see it enough to notice many details. Or a lot of those details faded with time.
Also even when home movie ownership became possible it was hard to find people to talk to about these things and your feelings. So blame it on technology.
It's the same about a lot of things. 300 years ago a discussion of the brain would have been "it controls the body and our thoughts." Today you can discuss how it works, the different parts and all the chemicals and their function, how it responds to different situations, why they work differently in individuals, what can be good or bad for it and many other things.
Man, people go to a lot of trouble to not understand a movie.
That's an issue with having access to the film 24/7. In the old days you saw a film thought "that was pretty good" and maybe saw it a few more times in the theater. Or "that sucked" and didn't bother to see it again. Then it was gone except for coming on TV once in a while. So you often didn't see it enough to notice many details. Or a lot of those details faded with time.
Also even when home movie ownership became possible it was hard to find people to talk to about these things and your feelings. So blame it on technology.
It's the same about a lot of things. 300 years ago a discussion of the brain would have been "it controls the body and our thoughts." Today you can discuss how it works, the different parts and all the chemicals and their function, how it responds to different situations, why they work differently in individuals, what can be good or bad for it and many other things.
Plus people now are more critical of movies in general. We've become a tougher crowd.
Man, people go to a lot of trouble to not understand a movie.
That's an issue with having access to the film 24/7. In the old days you saw a film thought "that was pretty good" and maybe saw it a few more times in the theater. Or "that sucked" and didn't bother to see it again. Then it was gone except for coming on TV once in a while. So you often didn't see it enough to notice many details. Or a lot of those details faded with time.
Also even when home movie ownership became possible it was hard to find people to talk to about these things and your feelings. So blame it on technology.
It's the same about a lot of things. 300 years ago a discussion of the brain would have been "it controls the body and our thoughts." Today you can discuss how it works, the different parts and all the chemicals and their function, how it responds to different situations, why they work differently in individuals, what can be good or bad for it and many other things.
Plus people now are more critical of movies in general. We've become a tougher crowd.
Well that's a direct effect of technology. See something once or twice you tend to say good or bad. Have unlimited access to it and now you can pick it apart and know what you want to see in a sequel or similar film. So expectations are higher before the film rolls.
Plus paying 12 a ticket as opposed to 1.50. You want that money spent to be worth it.
Man, people go to a lot of trouble to not understand a movie.
That's an issue with having access to the film 24/7. In the old days you saw a film thought "that was pretty good" and maybe saw it a few more times in the theater. Or "that sucked" and didn't bother to see it again. Then it was gone except for coming on TV once in a while. So you often didn't see it enough to notice many details. Or a lot of those details faded with time.
Also even when home movie ownership became possible it was hard to find people to talk to about these things and your feelings. So blame it on technology.
It's the same about a lot of things. 300 years ago a discussion of the brain would have been "it controls the body and our thoughts." Today you can discuss how it works, the different parts and all the chemicals and their function, how it responds to different situations, why they work differently in individuals, what can be good or bad for it and many other things.
Man, people go to a lot of trouble to not understand a movie.
That's an issue with having access to the film 24/7. In the old days you saw a film thought "that was pretty good" and maybe saw it a few more times in the theater. Or "that sucked" and didn't bother to see it again. Then it was gone except for coming on TV once in a while. So you often didn't see it enough to notice many details. Or a lot of those details faded with time.
Also even when home movie ownership became possible it was hard to find people to talk to about these things and your feelings. So blame it on technology.
It's the same about a lot of things. 300 years ago a discussion of the brain would have been "it controls the body and our thoughts." Today you can discuss how it works, the different parts and all the chemicals and their function, how it responds to different situations, why they work differently in individuals, what can be good or bad for it and many other things.
Plus people now are more critical of movies in general. We've become a tougher crowd.
But in this case my feeble aged brain can easily connect the dots that so many people seem to miss.
Chalk it up to my lesser level of intelligence, but I don't think you can hold screenwriters, directors, and editors to a standard that is quite frankly unreasonable for the general audience. And that general audience is what the franchise must target if it wants to remain viable (read: profitable).
Sorry, guys. You just might be too smart for your own good.
Similar threads
- Poll
