TNG movie dislike?

[Arpy]

Plus they killed Data for no good reason.

It was like a color by the numbers movie. Kill a main character to bring him back in a sequel? Check. Super-weaponed alien ship that should technically destroy the hero ship in seconds but doesn't? Check. Kewl road-race in the dessert with sand and goggles and lizard people and lazerz? Check. Space vampires? Check. Evil twin? Check. Half-assed dialogue, unfunny jokes, and lazy acting in another sequel? Check. Disgusting rape scene to up the eeevil-factor of the baddie? Check. Baddie who wants to DESTROY THE PLANET EARTH? Check. Just on and on...

 

[Lance]

^ A lot of latter-day Star Trek felt like it was colour-by-numbers, sadly. It was like they'd established a pattern of things Trek "does", and were spinning the yarn to those designs. I talked about this over in the Voyager forum not long ago, the sense of them creating 'generic' Star Trek. I do feel like Enterprise was a conscious attempt by the powers that be to break themselves out of their ennui, but even then we could still visibly see the writers struggling not to fall back into old habits.

Nemesis is oft accused of being a xerox of a xerox of The Wrath of Khan, and while I think that's a simplistic viewpoint, I also think they were , unfortunately, in a holding pattern making those movies. There's a 'Next Generation Random Movie Generator' on the internet which really does point out how samey the TNG movies in particular got to each other. Slavishly following a formula.

 

[locutus101]

It was like a color by the numbers movie. Kill a main character to bring him back in a sequel? Check. Super-weaponed alien ship that should technically destroy the hero ship in seconds but doesn't? Check. Kewl road-race in the dessert with sand and goggles and lizard people and lazerz? Check. Space vampires? Check. Evil twin? Check. Half-assed dialogue, unfunny jokes, and lazy acting in another sequel? Check. Disgusting rape scene to up the eeevil-factor of the baddie? Check. Baddie who wants to DESTROY THE PLANET EARTH? Check. Just on and on...

Yes, that's pretty much it.

 

[Lance]

There's a 'Next Generation Random Movie Generator' on the internet which really does point out how samey the TNG movies in particular got to each other. Slavishly following a formula.

Found it:

http://www.impossiblefunky.com/tngpg.html

 

[BJ Wagner]

I remember thinking that the TNG movies were missing an opportunity by not dealing with the Domnion War. At the time, DS9 was having some great stories involving that conflict and I wonder if a big-screen climax to it involving the TNG and DS9 casts might have turned out better than what we got?

 

[locutus101]

I remember thinking that the TNG movies were missing an opportunity by not dealing with the Domnion War. At the time, DS9 was having some great stories involving that conflict and I wonder if a big-screen climax to it involving the TNG and DS9 casts might have turned out better than what we got?

At any rate it's couldn't have been worse than NEM and INS.

 

[RAMA]

A agree. if you are going to postulate a huge war involving everyone in the ALpha Quadrant, then you shouldn't have a totally separate movie with your flagship barely acknowledging it. That was my thought process going into Insurrection.

RAMA

I remember thinking that the TNG movies were missing an opportunity by not dealing with the Domnion War. At the time, DS9 was having some great stories involving that conflict and I wonder if a big-screen climax to it involving the TNG and DS9 casts might have turned out better than what we got?

 

[BillJ]

I remember thinking that the TNG movies were missing an opportunity by not dealing with the Domnion War. At the time, DS9 was having some great stories involving that conflict and I wonder if a big-screen climax to it involving the TNG and DS9 casts might have turned out better than what we got?

Could it have been a better movie? Maybe. But you are essentially cutting out mainstream movie goers, the folks who don't have a clue what the Dominion War/Deep Space Nine is. Maybe if you did a trilogy of movies that put everything out there, it might have had a chance.

As a one-off? You'd likely get a better movie with a Nemesis-type box office.

 

[RAMA]

The exposition for such a story could last 1-3 minutes total. Easy. No problem. The story with a 60 million budget? C'mon.

RAMA

Could it have been a better movie? Maybe. But you are essentially cutting out mainstream movie goers, the folks who don't have a clue what the Dominion War/Deep Space Nine is. Maybe if you did a trilogy of movies that put everything out there, it might have had a chance.

As a one-off? You'd likely get a better movie with a Nemesis-type box office.

 

[BillJ]

The exposition for such a story could last 1-3 minutes total. Easy. No problem. The story with a 60 million budget? C'mon.

RAMA

Sure, if you cut away all the Deep Space Nine elements that are relevant to the story. But, if you include those, then it is a massive undertaking. Or are you just talking about another pew-pew movie with Picard, Data and a cast of extras?

 

[BJ Wagner]

The thing is, I don't think Star Trek has ever had a mass appeal in cinematic form, so having a Dominion War movie that dealt with certain DS9 elements probably wouldn't have made a big difference at the boxoffice. Had the movie actually been good, more people would have seen it. I think Trek gets into trouble by trying to pander to the masses, when it's clearly not for the masses.

I like how The X-files built up to their movie during the regular TV season. Then, after the film as out, carried on with that story through the next season. That film was aimed at the core audience, the ones who watched all the episodes and not just the casual movie viewer.

Trek will never have the boxoffice numbers of Star Wars, but when it goes for sci-fi action for the masses and neglects its diehard fans, we get Insuerrection, Nemesis and the current films.

I know this line of thinking is not right for the investors, but it's right for the fans. And it's probably a good thing I'm not in charge of film development at Paramount, because financially I'd suck at it.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I think Trek gets into trouble by trying to pander to the masses, when it's clearly not for the masses.

This.

This is actually why JJTrek is such a divisive thing among long term fans. In order to make it appeal to the masses, it has to move away from what appeals to many Trek fans. I think it's no coincidence that Beyond, the movie most tolerated by those lukewarm on JJTrek, also happens to be the movie least successful (albeit there is also a marketing argument for that).

Insurrection was actually a pretty good Trek story. Better, in my opinion, than any of the JJTrek scripts. It would have made a great series two parter, but it didn't belong on the big screen.

I'm still convinced that behind a skilled director and writers a summer blockbuster with explosions can be merged with intelligence and a Trek story. I think TWOK and TVH showed signs of that. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I just think it is a hard thing to pull off and nobody has really done it yet.

 

[BJ Wagner]

This.

This is actually why JJTrek is such a divisive thing among long term fans. In order to make it appeal to the masses, it has to move away from what appeals to many Trek fans. I think it's no coincidence that Beyond, the movie most tolerated by those lukewarm on JJTrek, also happens to be the movie least successful (albeit there is also a marketing argument for that).

Insurrection was actually a pretty good Trek story. Better, in my opinion, than any of the JJTrek scripts. It would have made a great series two parter, but it didn't belong on the big screen.

I'm still convinced that behind a skilled director and writers a summer blockbuster with explosions can be merged with intelligence and a Trek story. I think TWOK and TVH showed signs of that. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I just think it is a hard thing to pull off and nobody has really done it yet.

Well said. Even Simon Pegg mentioned that Paramount doesn't really know what Trek is or how to approach it. More evidence that Trek is at its best on TV.

 

[BillJ]

This is actually why JJTrek is such a divisive thing among long term fans. In order to make it appeal to the masses, it has to move away from what appeals to many Trek fans. I think it's no coincidence that Beyond, the movie most tolerated by those lukewarm on JJTrek, also happens to be the movie least successful (albeit there is also a marketing argument for that).

You do realize that Roddenberry himself stated the show needed twenty million viewers a week to stay on the air (in the 60's) and to put entertainment over philosophizing?



Star Trek has always appealed to the masses. Without the masses, it will wither away and die. It is tiresome when people try to equate Star Trek with some special club that only the chosen few understand.

I've been watching this stuff since 1975, and the Abrams films are every bit "Star Trek" as anything else out there.

 

[BillJ]

 

[Smoked Salmon]

You do realize that Roddenberry himself stated the show needed twenty million viewers a week to stay on the air (in the 60's) and to put entertainment over philosophizing?



Star Trek has always appealed to the masses. Without the masses, it will wither away and die. It is tiresome when people try to equate Star Trek with some special club that only the chosen few understand.

I am not doing that and you are just playing straw man. I quite clearly said that I believe you could pull off the two at the same time. However, it would be silly not to consider the reasons Trek has endured for so long, and part of that is that the intelligence and hope aspects did appeal to certain people. Not all Trek fans, but a good percentage of them. Many people (and more than just a handful of haters) feel that the present movies have lacked that somewhat. You don't have to agree with that, but equally you don't have to behave as if that feeling is invalid.

Oh, and Roddenberry is not the last word on Trek. He created the core of it, but it's success is down to many others as well, and the fans that followed. To hang on slavishly to his words is silly - especially words from 50 years ago when entertainment was very different - does not mean that the reasons some are fans is negated and can be ignored.

I've been watching this stuff since 1975, and the Abrams films are every bit "Star Trek" as anything else out there.

In your opinion. In mine they are not. But I'll tell you now, I have no desire to get into one of these tedious discussions you see online over what constitutes a "true fan". No two fans are the same and no two fans like the show for exactly the same reasons. It's petty stuff. Some of us feel that the JJTrek movies moved away from what Trek was at it's best. That's just the way it is. I'm not going to change my mind on that just because someone on the internet insists that I do. Live and let live.

 

[BillJ]

Another gem...

 

[Seven of Five]

Plus they killed Data for no good reason.

I don't mind it when they want to kill a character off for whatever reason. I just wish they'd take the time to make it worthwhile. It only really worked with Spock.

Did anyone else not like the space battle in NEM? It seems like people point to it as a highlight of the movie, but I never felt any danger to the ship, nor any visceral reaction to the destructive power of the weapons. Zappity zap zap...okay.

I love the battle, it was one of the high points for me. Whilst the story didn't make a dot of sense, I bought into the urgency during those scenes.

 

[BillJ]

Also, if one looks at most polls, including the one's on this site, it seems the Abrams films actually do very well with Star Trek fans. It is just the old "squeaky wheel gets the grease", as the bashers are far louder than the folks who are happy with the films.

 

[Kor]

To me, the Abrams films moved away from the pretentious philosophical pontificating of TNG, which, unfortunately, seems to have overshadowed the true spirit of Star Trek among fandom, and got back to the basics of TOS's compelling characterization and colorful, swashbuckling action-adventure in a future setting, with a hint of commentary to round things out. To me, that's real Star Trek.

Kor