TOS vs. TNG - adaptability to the big screen

Forgive me if this topic has been covered before, but I've been curious to know people's insights on why TOS seemed to make a better transition to the big screen than TNG did. Of course, the premise itself is a matter of opinion, but if anyone would like to chime in, I'd welcome your thoughts.

 

I think TOS transformed more easily to the action big screen blockbuster format. TOS was the Wild, Wild West, TNG more the West Wing.

 

TNG crossed over to the big screen just fine, once they'd made it as much like TOS as they possibly could

 

The TNG movies are fine... for television movies. Budget them for $10-12 million in 1996 dollars, air them on UPN, and between ad sales, syndication, and perennial home media sales the movies would turn a modest profit. The whole point, from Paramount's perspective, for making TNG movies was to cut down on the costs of making Star Trek films by bringing in a (theoretically) cheaper cast, except it didn't work out that way and Paramount ended up with the same diminishing returns problem that led to the TNG movies in the first place.

The films are not particularly ambitious (Generations may be the only ambitious one of the bunch, because it breaks the status quo), the stories told would have been perfectly fine episodes of the series, the films were made by television people, there's a sense that they were done so a bunch of friends could hang out for two months, and they never really justify their existence beyond that.

 

The TNG movie writers were better at writing small scale stories and character drama than they were at crafting big budget movies with high stakes and lots of action. The TOS movies had convincing action, big( but simple stories) that resonated to general movie audiences, and solid narratives.

Generations had some big cinematic themes and good action scenes but the script was poorly integrated and episodic. First Contact is competent but for an action\horror movie it does very little to keep the viewer on the edge of their seat. For a Borg showdown it's not that memorable and Picard as Ahab was an out-of- left-field cliché. Insurrection has a good narrative but some of the action scenes are meaningless and unexciting, the aliens were too generic for the big screen, and the story got too complicated for a general audience. I haven't seen Nemesis since it opened, but from what I remember its the most pointless and tedious of all the TNG movies.

 

In both cases the quality of their movies varied up and down. For me, my favorite of the 10 REAL Star Trek movies (Jar-Jar Abrams Trek lobotomy doesn't exist, I'm still repressing it), I think was the most the robust Trek movie: First Contact....It was the Trek movie that had everything: a great story that keeps you wondering and fills in Trek story gaps, a wonderful ending, lots of fine-acted, fine-written intense drama and acting ("I will make them PAY for what they've done!!!"), a much deeper, more vivid look at the Borg, with Alice Krige's queen making a villain that ranks up with Khan and Gul Dukat, a loud, testosterone-soaked Jerry Goldsmith ballsy score, many scenes of jolting action, suspense, dazzling visual effects and cinematography. It was the Star Trek movie that delivered all the best qualities you'd want from one. Name me a better Star Trek movie.

I guess you could say that First Contact was the Trek movie in which every quality was very smoothly polished. Besides being my favorite Trek movie, it's one of my favorite deep space sci-fi movies in general.

 

I recently rewatched Star Trek: First Contact and while there is much to admire in it, I still find it empty and uninvolving. For an action/zombie movie I don't find it particularly suspenseful and I thought Picard's Ahab complex came out of left field. It was purely manufactured for this movie. And a Borg Queen who looks like a Dominatrix was just silly. The film does a good job setting up the story and establishing what the crew needs to do to save the earth. The stakes are high and the story appealed to the general audience. I liked the earth scenes with Zefram Cochrane more than the Borg stuff. The film looks amazing, there are some great new sets, and Goldsmith's score is superb.

I still prefer all the TOS films over the TNG films.

 

I suppose I just happened to see more ambitious "spirit" in First Contact than you did. To each his own. I really enjoyed watching Data fiercely snap a Borg's neck to Goldsmith's big crescendos. And knowing the warp drive inventor Cochrane and getting involved in that piece of Star Trek history with the Vulcans. I also thought that the deflector dish battle had the best choreography/direction I've ever seen in a Star Trek movie.

 

I think a protagonist should be strong.

Right from the first time we see Kirk in TMP, he's determined to get his command back. When the Enterprise first stares down V'Ger, Kirk disregards Decker's warnings -- sticks to his instincts -- and V'Ger doesn't destroy them.

When we first see Picard in GEN, he's on a holodeck program, then he finds out his family on Earth died, and then he ends up a mopy, crying mess. It's completely understandable that Picard would be in such a distraught state but that's not the the type of character story you should tell when you're introducing him as the person who's supposed to replace Kirk. Then Soran beats up Picard and he has to get Kirk to help him out. When the chips were down, Picard had to call 1-800-GET-KIRK. After GEN, they over-corrected by turning Picard into some Macho He-Man. Kirk could throw a punch but it's his ingenuity and on-the-fly thinking that always saved the day.

Then there are Spock and Data. When Spock first appears in TMP, he's attempting to undergo Kholinar. He's not himself because he's trying to become what he thinks is better. Then he realizes, after melding with V'Ger that he was pursuing the wrong path. In GEN, Data isn't himself because he does something stupid -- like pushing Crusher into water -- and then has the emotion chip installed which makes him act even stupider. It was supposed to be funny but it was trying too hard.

And there's the destruction of the Enterprise.

In TSFS, the Klingons have the Enterprise at a disadvantage. The ship only has five people, automation is knocked out, and the Enterprise still hasn't been repaired from TWOK. As Kirk said, "So, we're a sitting duck." He destroys the Enterprise himself to keep the Klingons from seizing it and escapes to Genesis to figure out what to do next. He's staying one step ahead of the Klingons even if they have the upper hand. In GEN, there's a coolant leak in the warp core and then BOOM! That was so stupid. Couldn't Geordi even try to eject the core?

Finally, the message. The 20th/21st Century vs. The 23rd/24th Century.

TVH handled it better. Spock's deadpan delivery how "Judging by the pollution content of the atmosphere, I believe we have arrived at the latter half of the 20th Century", McCoy complaining about how it's a miracle we ever got out of the 20th Century, Kirk telling Gillian about how he could take the Whales to place where they'd never be hunted, and playing up for laughs the fact that they don't use money in the 23rd Century by having those scenes where Kirk has to sell his glasses for cash and then the exchange between Kirk and Gillian. "Don't tell me they don't use money in the 23rd Century." "Well, we don't." It's all light, funny, amusing, and doesn't make you feel like they're beating you over the head with anything.

Compare that with FC, where Picard says they have a more evolved sensibility, then starts to act like Rambo. When Lily says he envies him for the world he's going to, I don't buy it. If I were Lily, and my only glimpse into the 24th Century was "Captain Ahab" vs. The Borg, I wouldn't think the 24th Century would be any better than the 21st, and Lily was right to call Picard out on his bullshit. When you finish watching TVH, you think the 23rd Century is a better place. When you finish watching FC, you don't feel the same way about the 24th. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that Picard wholeheartedly believes something that clearly isn't the case.

This is just scratching the surface but I don't think TNG translated as well to the Big Screen as TOS because they didn't have as good of a handle on their main leads, there's no comparison between similar dramatic beats, and they didn't as effectively deliver the messages they were trying to convey.

 

I agree. FC is a competent film, but doesn't hold a candle to the best of the TOS films. It has too many weaknesses and it just misses a few key moments.


Ultimately, I think it's rather simple: they kept TNG films with the same production staff as the television show, for the most part. That was a mistake, as every movie felt like...well...a television show. With TOS, they brought in new producers and writers and it made the films feel fresh and dramatic. Nothing about the TNG films felt fresh. They just felt like big episodes. TOS movies never felt that way.

 

I think a TNG movie that did TNG justice could've been possible because I think you actually have that with "The Best of Both Worlds". The stakes are high, so's the drama, they have to win with their smarts, it delves deeply into who the characters are, and pushes them to their limits. When Picard is transformed into Locutus, Guinan tells Riker he has to let go of Picard. Riker says he "wrote the book in this ship." Then Guinan says he'll have to throw that book away. "It's the only way to beat him. The only way to save him." It's what the TNG movies should've been.

 

Bit obvious this but with TOS there was a 10y gap and a huge evolution in technology (60s tv show to biggest budget movie in the new post StarWars age) and just a complete overhaul of 'star trek' (uniforms/FX/sets/ship designs.. plus everyone looked noticeably different) with a big movie director - all of which made it a massive event.. whereas TNG was literally a couple of months after the series finale (with DS9 happening/VOY about to) and everything looked virtually the same (although there was an attempt to give TNG the big screen treatment and the curiosity of seeing that).. also the TV team were making the movies as opposed to proper 'movie' people ..and since the TNG series was quite 'movie' quality at times (and ultimately stuff like YE/BOBW/AGT superior to any of the TNG movies) the TNG films had abit extended episodes on big screen feel. Maybe a couple of years after the end of the series would've helped just to create abit of distance/anticipation/different uniforms (and enabled a satisfactory rewrite to clean up the nexus stuff/Kirks death, involve Nimoy, etc)

Then of course TOS had the connecting entries 234 which felt like a trilogy where as TNG standalone entries

 

TOS movies, hands down. Everything was BIG in TMP. Not counting TAS, a decade had passed since the last time we saw our heroes. We were curious where they were in their lives? What challenges had they faced? For each consecutive film, we revisit our friends on their path every couple years for a fun adventure. The only complaint: I would have preferred if the actual passage of time between TOS-TMP in-universe had been 10 years as well instead of 2.5. Would have made things seem more realistic.

Whereas, the TNG films didn't even give us time to come up for air before splashing on the screen and try their best to be "BIG". But the anticipation and curiosity wasn't there. Just franchise fatigue. I'm half-hoping that ST:Picard retcons them out of existence!

 

the sheer anticipation for TMP (before it disappointed the majority) mustve been off the scale.. im kind of surprised it didn't outgross Star Wars! in fact had it been to everyones liking like a colourful action packed homage to TOS with plenty space battles/phasers/KirkFu/space babes maybe it would've had a ton of repeat biz and done just that

I think the idea of released GEN so soon was to ride the wave of TNG popularity for fear it might dissipate ..as opposed to taking some time out , giving everyone a rest, letting the writers iron out the script..
itd be quite funny if STP retconns them lol..(bet they get scant reference tho..other than FC - I expect them to reference that every other ep!)

 

TOS movies were treated like major productions. TNG movies were (usually) treated like long episodes.

 

FC was an intense nineties action movie, and quite enjoyable with a bowl of popcorn on those terms. Did it convey the true essence of the series? Perhaps not.

Kor

 

But I LIKED Picard's raging, action-oriented slight emotional instability in FC! I though it made his character more complex and more realistically human, and as I said before it had Stewart's best acting scene: "I WILL MAKE THEM !!!PAY!!! FOR WHAT THEY'VE DONE!!!" That scene of Picard violently trashing his own captain's office while raging like that - that alone was worth the price of the admission; I can't think of a more ferocious acting moment in any of Trek's feature movies....except maybe Shatner's collapse in STIII when David was killed.

 

I like FC and that scene. Some powerful acting on Patrick Stewart's part.

I'm just talking about my impression of TOS and TNG movies as a whole. I even left out TWOK and INS/NEM, which hurts TOS and helps TNG... but, even then, it still didn't tip the scales.

 

If we hadn't had 7 seasons and one movie that demonstratred that Picard makes rational decisions, that he doesn't act out of vengeance, and that he puts the lives of his crew first, I would have enjoyed it too. It's dramatic and well acted.

Crusher and Worf know Picard is wrong but only Alfre Woodard can talk him out of sacrificing his officers to satisfy his anger? I didn't buy it.

 

FC was a blockbuster action movie, but Generations and Insurrection, I agree, felt like extended episodes (the former especially), as enjoyable as they are.

Nemesis felt cinematic but not TNG, I'm not sure how to explain it!

What makes a good Star Trek movie? What do you want from a Trek movie? My personal favourites are FC, TUC and Trek09 (yes, not TWOK). What makes a good Star Trtek movie? Should you bring characters from the TV series to the big screen?