TNG Movies made Too Soon?

[Ssosmcin]

A lot of factors went into the decision to go into films when they did. Consider that after 7 years in a top rated show, the cast was angling to do other work. That, plus the usual escalation, brought their salary demads higher and higher. Everything cost more by this time and since they had MORE than enough episodes to make TNG viable for syndication, they decided to introduce a new Trek TV show to keep the franchise alive on TV for a lot less money. They also kept TNG alive by going into films now that the original cast had ended their run. Paramount felt the cast and series popularity among the general population would translate into big box office bucks. Actually, unlike the uncertainy of the TOS gang, the TNG folks were confident about going into films: "we'll finish our run on TV then move into features, taking over from the original cast." A far cry from "is this the last one?" fear we got every few years from 1979 - 1991.

Back then the prevailing thought was that TNG would supplant TOS in the public consciousness when someone mentioned "Star Trek." Even though this didn't actually happen, Paramount was 100% right to deliver films as quickly as they did after the end of the series. TNG did not prove to have the same staying power in reruns TOS does. It is absolutely remembered as a great TV show and ask most 30 somethings what Trek they like and TNG will be their choice (go younger and you get Voyager - hardly anyone picks DS9 and nobody says "Enterprise" - well, not "nobody" but the numbers are small).

TNG did not achieve that legendary, totally fan fueled status as a cultural icon. The whole thing is that FANS rewatch TV shows over and over. The general population watches a show until cancelation, then moves onto whatever else is on TV. Public acceptence of TNG and a long run did not guarantee a long shelf life. This spilled over into the movies. Generations got butts in the seats by coming off a highly successful finale and the Shatner connection (cuz TOS always had public interest). First Contact won people over with the high action content and time travel. When those tricks were spent, they went back to standard TNG style Trek (amped up for the big screen) and the general population started fading. By the time Nemesis appeared, not even fans tried it before slamming it and driving it into total failure. Even after a 4 year gap, people stopped caring about Picard, Data and Worf. The total lack of even an opening day success showed that nobody cared enough to make the trip (remember when fans would support even a bad Trek film if only to get the chance for a better follow up? No loyalty anymore). The further we got from TNG, timewise, the less interest there was. This happened with X-Files. Their movie during the series was a success (probably also because they promised answers - but really didn't deliver), but last year's film was met with indifference. "Been there, done that - on to better things" was the response. The TNG cast was excellent, the series was outstanding, but the public wasn't in love with the characters as much as the series itself. And they saw the series, so they were done.

15 years after "All Good Things", what series does the public think of when you say "Star Trek?" According to this summer's box office, it's not TNG...

The point to this endless rambling is thus: had Paramount waited 10 years to release a TNG film, it probably would have tanked. The cast didn't have the staying power, the show wasn't cancelled after 3 short years, the show was starting to lose ground creatively (that final year was pretty weary) and the public had Trek in the meantime (arguably too much of it). TOS had the benefit of building in popularity, with nothing new (aside from TAS) to keep fans slated. Actually, 1979 was exactly the right time for TMP. It gave the fan interest the time to build to a fever pitch. People discovered TNG as it happened. TOS didn't get their fans until the 70's and they gained more every year.

Paramount gave fans what they wanted until fans had their fill. The they waited for the meals to digest and people to get a little hungry before bringing out the next course. They ain't so dumb.

 

[QuasarVM]

My point was there shouldn't have been a TNG film...at all.

Seven seasons was enough...and speaking purely for myself, again -- the movies didn't add anything or do anything any better (or even as well as) than the series did...

 

[Bones2]

My point was there shouldn't have been a TNG film...at all.

Seven seasons was enough...and speaking purely for myself, again -- the movies didn't add anything or do anything any better (or even as well as) than the series did...

I think you're wrong, but either way, they wouldn't pass up an obvious opportunity to make money.

 

[QuasarVM]

I still say the films ruined the legacy of the TNG TV series...

 

[Too Much Fun]

Not really, if you look at it a certain way. I just enjoy my favourite parts of the seasons and think of "First Contact" as the only movie adaptation of the series and pretend the others don't exist. Fans are lucky to get even one spin-off movie from a beloved TV series, let alone one that's good. So I'm grateful we at least got that much. Pity it was only one out of four.

 

[I am not Spock]

The general public do know TNG, but not to the same extent as TOS. Everyone knows who Kirk and Spock are. Some will know Picard and Data, and 'that weird guy with the muck on his forehead'. DS9 and VOY will get nothing but blank stares from anyone except for involved Trekkies.

I agree, though, that they should have done the films when they did them. If they waited ten years, it would have turned out like 'The X Files: I Want To Believe'. Too little, too late. People don't really have any loyalty anymore. Except for hardcore fans, people will just move on to whatever the latest fad is (God, I can't wait for this silly sparkling vampire 'Twilight' fad to be over)

 

[I am not Spock]

A thought had occurred to me, but I was thinking of how much time had elapsed between the length of time it took Paramount to make movies for TOS as compared to TNG's final episode. As opposed to TOS, the gap between the small screen to the silver screen was not as extended. I think this actually hurt the TNG movies because nostalgia for the series was not allowed to grow over time as with TOS. I'm not trying to say that this is the entire reason why the TNG series of movies were less satisfying on the whole as compared to the TOS based movies. Assembly line movie production and using scripts which really needed more refining are a part of the equation, but what do you think?

I always wondered how the first TNG movie came out so fast. The only reason I thought because of the gap of TOS and their movies, was because of the origin of Star Wars. Wasn't that movie what sparked Star Trek's return back in the 70's?

Yes. Paramount only realised what a goldmine they had sitting under them after the success of SW. 'What do we have that can compete with that? Well, this little thing called Star Trek'...

The return of Trek owes a lot to George Lucas. And actually, SW itself may not have happened without ST (I recall Lucas saying he was influenced by TOS). So the wheel turned full circle. ST begat SW begat ST.

And now with XI doing very well, the ball is now in Lucas' court again! You have to do something equally as good as that now, Beardie!

 

[Peach Wookiee]

^And he may not...

 

[Bones2]

And now with XI doing very well, the ball is now in Lucas' court again! You have to do something equally as good as that now, Beardie!

Are you talking about more Star Wars specifically, or just some Lucas project?

Come to think of it, I'd rate XI on about the same level as the Star Wars pequels. I'd never really thought of it like that before.

 

[I am not Spock]

I meant, by that comment, that Star Trek is now (finally) cooler than Star Wars. Lucas needs to step up to the plate with his Star Wars TV series.

 

[Red Ranger]

Well, it would've helped if most of the stories weren't lame. To me, the only real good one was FC. I enjoyed a little bit of GEN, but INS and NEM were just altogether bad, like the more crummy TNG first season eps. -- RR

 

[Too Much Fun]

If they waited ten years, it would have turned out like 'The X Files: I Want To Believe'. Too little, too late.

Nah, I'm sure if the movie had a better story and characters, people would have embraced it.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

A lot of factors went into the decision to go into films when they did. Consider that after 7 years in a top rated show, the cast was angling to do other work. That, plus the usual escalation, brought their salary demads higher and higher. Everything cost more by this time and since they had MORE than enough episodes to make TNG viable for syndication, they decided to introduce a new Trek TV show to keep the franchise alive on TV for a lot less money.

There's one other reason why Generations had to happen in November 1994.

Paramount had the cast of TNG under contract for an eighth season; the cast signed two year extensions after the sixth season. But that would have taken TNG into May of '95, and Paramount wanted to launch UPN in January of '95 with a new Star Trek series anchoring the network. Could the audience have supported three Star Trek series in the winter and spring of '95? Unlikely. TNG had to leave the air for Voyager to take its place.

With TNG going off the air, with November '94 being three years (roughly) since the last movie, it made sense for Paramount to transition the crew to the big screen when they did. Without a UPN to muddy things up, there might've been a classic Trek film in '94.

 

[Cyke101]

A lot of factors went into the decision to go into films when they did. Consider that after 7 years in a top rated show, the cast was angling to do other work. That, plus the usual escalation, brought their salary demads higher and higher. Everything cost more by this time and since they had MORE than enough episodes to make TNG viable for syndication, they decided to introduce a new Trek TV show to keep the franchise alive on TV for a lot less money.

There's one other reason why Generations had to happen in November 1994.

Paramount had the cast of TNG under contract for an eighth season; the cast signed two year extensions after the sixth season. But that would have taken TNG into May of '95, and Paramount wanted to launch UPN in January of '95 with a new Star Trek series anchoring the network. Could the audience have supported three Star Trek series in the winter and spring of '95? Unlikely. TNG had to leave the air for Voyager to take its place.

With TNG going off the air, with November '94 being three years (roughly) since the last movie, it made sense for Paramount to transition the crew to the big screen when they did. Without a UPN to muddy things up, there might've been a classic Trek film in '94.

Whoa, I never knew all that. I just assumed that TNG ending after 7 years was a creative decision. I knew the decision wasn't out of financial necessity b/c it always had strong ratings and that near the end was when it started getting mainstream acting nominations (as opposed to your standard "Best Sound Editing" and "Best Costume Design" nominations).

 

[DWF]

A lot of factors went into the decision to go into films when they did. Consider that after 7 years in a top rated show, the cast was angling to do other work. That, plus the usual escalation, brought their salary demads higher and higher. Everything cost more by this time and since they had MORE than enough episodes to make TNG viable for syndication, they decided to introduce a new Trek TV show to keep the franchise alive on TV for a lot less money.

There's one other reason why Generations had to happen in November 1994.

Paramount had the cast of TNG under contract for an eighth season; the cast signed two year extensions after the sixth season. But that would have taken TNG into May of '95, and Paramount wanted to launch UPN in January of '95 with a new Star Trek series anchoring the network. Could the audience have supported three Star Trek series in the winter and spring of '95? Unlikely. TNG had to leave the air for Voyager to take its place.

With TNG going off the air, with November '94 being three years (roughly) since the last movie, it made sense for Paramount to transition the crew to the big screen when they did. Without a UPN to muddy things up, there might've been a classic Trek film in '94.

According to Shatner's Movie Memories book, the decision to end TNG after seven seasons and make a theater movie was made back in '90 long before UPN came into being. It was the failure of Star Trek V that led them to make that decision.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

That doesn't actually make sense, however. If that were true, Paramount would have negotiated only for a one year contract extension for the leads, not two, since the contracts expired at the end of season six. It was fairly well documented at the time (Cinefantastique, Sci-Fi Universe) that Paramount ate the eighth season of TNG to do a film in its place.

 

[DWF]

That doesn't actually make sense, however. If that were true, Paramount would have negotiated only for a one year contract extension for the leads, not two, since the contracts expired at the end of season six. It was fairly well documented at the time (Cinefantastique, Sci-Fi Universe) that Paramount ate the eighth season of TNG to do a film in its place.

I was under the impression that their contracts were up after the fifth season. And Rick Berman was approached in 1992 by Paramount with them wanting the next movie to be a TNG movie.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Generations#Development

 

[Allyn Gibson]

No, contracts were up at the end of 6. (Same with Deep Space Nine, which is why Terry Ferrell walked.)

 

[BillJ]

A lot of factors went into the decision to go into films when they did. Consider that after 7 years in a top rated show, the cast was angling to do other work. That, plus the usual escalation, brought their salary demads higher and higher. Everything cost more by this time and since they had MORE than enough episodes to make TNG viable for syndication, they decided to introduce a new Trek TV show to keep the franchise alive on TV for a lot less money.

There's one other reason why Generations had to happen in November 1994.

Paramount had the cast of TNG under contract for an eighth season; the cast signed two year extensions after the sixth season. But that would have taken TNG into May of '95, and Paramount wanted to launch UPN in January of '95 with a new Star Trek series anchoring the network. Could the audience have supported three Star Trek series in the winter and spring of '95? Unlikely. TNG had to leave the air for Voyager to take its place.

With TNG going off the air, with November '94 being three years (roughly) since the last movie, it made sense for Paramount to transition the crew to the big screen when they did. Without a UPN to muddy things up, there might've been a classic Trek film in '94.

Perhaps the eighth season contracts were in place in case the talks developing UPN fell through. DS9 ratings weren't quite as good as TNG and maybe Paramount was worried about its' ability to sell another series in syndication?

 

[STR]

When those tricks were spent, they went back to standard TNG style Trek (amped up for the big screen) and the general population started fading. By the time Nemesis appeared, not even fans tried it before slamming it and driving it into total failure. Even after a 4 year gap, people stopped caring about Picard, Data and Worf.

...or Nemesis was a really awful movie. Poorly written, directed, and promoted. Plus, they killed a still loved character. They trashed a fantastic premise of the TNG crew facing Romulans on the big screen (it could have been great, filled with intrigue, attacks, counterattacks, the Rommies are clever adversaries). It seems to be trendy to use words like "franchise fatigue" or think up vast causalities that doomed a series from the beginning, but the answer is infinitely more simple. Awful movie = no viewers = no profit = no more movies. Like I said, simple. Anything else is Rick Berman unapologetically covering his ass and blaming his fans for not putting up with crap forever.

LeVar Burton said it sucked. How bad of a movie do you have to make for its actors to hate it? My only "Nemesis" hope, is that somewhere in the 50 minutes of footage cut out to make it a mindless action flick, there is enough to re-edit the film into something greater...