I would almost agree, but "Yes! That is it! I hate this. It is revolting!" still makes me laugh out loud.
Was moving 'The Next Generation' over to movies a bad decision?
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
^It was appropriate to his emotion chip at the time. And then there was "YES!" And of course what everyone on the bridge was thinking as they were heading toward the planet... "OH SHIT!" He was the only one who could logically say it at the time.
I don't think the move to movies was wrong, but the films always felt too much like the TV show. The movies' structure continued the TV show's desire to give the whole cast stories in the running time of the film rather than keep focused on the main story.Now, I should start by pointing out that I know from a business perspective it certainly wasn't a bad idea. The buzz around Star Trek in 1994 was huge, and the franchise was (arguably) at it's pop culture zenith. From a dollars and cents point-of-view, shifting the TNG cast to the big screen was a no brainer.
However, with the benefit of hindsight...I suppose as long as they were profitable (the bottom line) then there was no harm in it. By most accounts Generations, First Contact and Insurrection were all achievers. Nemesis didn't do so well at the box office (so by most measures that one was a failure), but has probably long since broke even on DVD and rebroadcast deals.
But is it really? Certainly, it took the TOS crew coming back (albeit with different actors in the roles) to revitalise the franchise as a movie series after Nemesis nearly killed it stone dead. One can't help but wonder if the movies should always have been about Kirk, Spock, and the rest. Harve Bennett famously had a plan inthe early 1990s to circumvent the aging original cast while still keeping the classic original characters on the big screen, but the time just wasn't right for such beloved characters and institutions to be recast in such a way. We wouldn't blink an eye-lid at it now, of course, but the potential uproar in fandom at the idea back then was enough to scare Paramount executives away from Bennett's plan.
From the viewpoint of a fan of TNG, we've also got the factor of the TNG series ending on the perfect note, and the four films effectively undoing the good will that All Good Things... was built on. If TNG had ended with that episode and then disappeared into reruns, I think it'd be more fondly remembered than it is by the general public. We as fans still give it the thumbsup, but there's a perception, rightly or wrongly, that a string of moderate films followed by one that bombed horribly at the box office effectively (and retrospectively) taints TNG forevermore. After those movies, TNG didn't have nearly as much integrity as it did on tv.
There's another factor, too. Between 1987 and 1991, there were two Star Trek production teams. The Movie Guys (Bennett, Ralph Winter, et al) who supervised movies based around the 23rd century and the original series characters; and The TV Guys (Berman, Piller, et al) who were focused on TNG Trek within the realm of television. Now, it had been proven that Star Trek could co-exist with itself this way, with one team working on movies and another on tv. But in 1994 with the elevation of the TNG cast to the big screen, the two dovetailed. Rick Berman was now chief of 'the Star Trek brand' in general, both movies and on television. One man can not supervised three television productions plus a series of bi-annual movies without spreading himself a little thin, and I think this is exactly what happened. Berman was over-stretched, and the overall quality of Star Trek took a dip as a result. Certainly I am of the belief that one of the reasons the 2009 movie was so strong was because all energies were focused towards it. There is no television Trek to suckle away from interest in the movies. It's like the early 1980s all over again, when TOS was hugely profitable on movie screens because it was alone and the only ticket in town for fans of Star Trek.
I'm in two minds. I love TNG, I love that cast. I just don't think they were adaptable for the big screen. TNG was cut from a different cloth to TOS, and in order to tell TNG movies they had to essentially sacrifice a great deal of what made tv TNG so unique within and of itself.
While the cast had a different feel to many in the films to their TV show selves, the TOS films were just as different from the TV characterizations in many ways. For me the TNG films were too concerned with diverging from the TV show in look, pacing and characterization. Abrahms Trek did the right thing, I'd say, by not worrying about going off the path with the Trek Look and embraced making a whole new version of the franchise.
Finally, the movies may not have been serviced by having the TV shows ongoing with looks and stories so similar to the films. It furthered the sense that these movies were no more than overlong TV episodes.
Yeah, it would've taken something miraculous, like Spielberg offering to direct such a movie only, and Stewart standing by him. Or Stewart offering to do it as a TV movie for cheap. Would've probably hurt the feelings of the rest of the cast, too. "We all not good enough for you? Shouldn't this sort of story be a novel?"
There's no reason for Uhura and Chekhov to still be on the Enterprise during the late TOS movies. At a certain point, the actor-character dynamic overshadows in-continuity logic.
Paramount's movie division was thinking that it had been three years since the last Trek movie, and that TNG was a very hot property at the time.
Hindsight is always 20-20 as the old saying goes, but Paramount's mindset in 1994 probably was to strike while the iron was hot rather than to let TNG cool off.
I'll throw another theoretical hand-grenade out there: one of the things which arguably sinks the TNG movies like a stone (floatational Data optional!) is that they're all stand-alones. Look at the TOS movies, and every one of them from TWOK through to TVH (and possibly even TFF and TUC, thematically) are telling what we'd now call a 'story arc'. Each movie builds on the ending of the previous one, the story develops and the Trek universe feels much larger as a result. It's theatrical story-telling for theatrical movies.
Contrast this to TNG, where every movie stands alone in and of itself, with (probably) the only link being Riker and Troi shagging in Insurrection leading to them getting married in Nemesis. The reason we so often hear the TNG movies being described as "double-sized TV episodes on the big screen" is because, limited as they are to self-contained plots, they feel like they've been written for television. First Contact being the one exception.
Contrast this to TNG, where every movie stands alone in and of itself, with (probably) the only link being Riker and Troi shagging in Insurrection leading to them getting married in Nemesis. The reason we so often hear the TNG movies being described as "double-sized TV episodes on the big screen" is because, limited as they are to self-contained plots, they feel like they've been written for television. First Contact being the one exception.
And the movies looked small, for example the old movies had a big Starbase from where the Enterprise left, I would have loved to see the Enterprise E leaving the Starbase.
Or more Space ships
Or more Space ships
I think if the second had been done right, the first wouldn't have mattered so much.
I was more upset about loss of the Enterprise-D than Kirk. I think it was because for a long time, I thought really only McCoy and Spock were the only members of the TOS gang still alive during TNG (with Scotty added after "Relics").
I guess in hindsight, Generations bought back someone I already thought was dead and killed him twice in the same story.
I guess in hindsight, Generations bought back someone I already thought was dead and killed him twice in the same story.
A big problem I had was that blowing up the Enterprise-D and killing Kirk in Generations invalidated two of the best entries in Trek, TUC and "All Good Things".
Many people expected TUC to be the last time we saw Kirk and the Enterprise-D would have much more adventures, but we were in for a rude awakening!
I think Kirk's death has got dramatic potential if done properly. Like it was at the start of "Generations". For me the problem with the movie isn't that they killed James T. Kirk... it's that they killed him twice, but the fake first death at the start of the movie was better that the real second one.
Generations is the most half-arsed effort of the movie franchise. Kirk's death is rushed, pointless and unmemorable which is everything it shouldn't have been.
First Contact is a fun shoot 'em up, Insurrection is really underrated and Nemesis is really no dumber than Trek 2009. It just doesn't feel as fresh.
First Contact is a fun shoot 'em up, Insurrection is really underrated and Nemesis is really no dumber than Trek 2009. It just doesn't feel as fresh.
I was more upset about loss of the Enterprise-D than Kirk.
Most definitely "same". Extremely disappointed they went this route. If they wanted it lighted/framed differently, the ship could've just had a refit. Look how much the "original" Enterprise changed from season 3 of TOS to TMP.
When I think of Star Trek III, and the sacrifice of the Enterprise, it sends shivers down my spine. When I think of "Generations" and the Ent-D crashing into a planet, I just don't get the same reaction.
And as a TNG fan above all other Treks, I really should.
I was more upset about loss of the Enterprise-D than Kirk.
Most definitely "same". Extremely disappointed they went this route. If they wanted it lighted/framed differently, the ship could've just had a refit. Look how much the "original" Enterprise changed from season 3 of TOS to TMP.
There were two reasons the Enterprise-D was destroyed.
The first was that Ron Moore had wanted to do it in season six (specifically, he wanted to crash the saucer into a planet), but they couldn't do it on a television budget. When Berman took ideas from Moore and Braga, that was one of the ideas they pulled out since they could do it properly on a movie's budget.
The second was that the Enterprise-D filming model wasn't up to snuff for film. The ILM model was low on detail (the smaller 4-foot model had a more detailed surface than ILM's 6-foot model) and there weren't many good camera angles for it. The idea from an FX standpoint was that they could replace the model with something better suited to film in terms of resolution and usable angles. (That's roughly the same reason the Excelsior was built. Andy Probert's design for the Enterprise was fantastic, but the model didn't work well with ILM's equipment.)
I was more upset about loss of the Enterprise-D than Kirk.
Most definitely "same". Extremely disappointed they went this route. If they wanted it lighted/framed differently, the ship could've just had a refit. Look how much the "original" Enterprise changed from season 3 of TOS to TMP.
There were two reasons the Enterprise-D was destroyed.
The first was that Ron Moore had wanted to do it in season six (specifically, he wanted to crash the saucer into a planet), but they couldn't do it on a television budget. When Berman took ideas from Moore and Braga, that was one of the ideas they pulled out since they could do it properly on a movie's budget.
The second was that the Enterprise-D filming model wasn't up to snuff for film. The ILM model was low on detail (the smaller 4-foot model had a more detailed surface than ILM's 6-foot model) and there weren't many good camera angles for it. The idea from an FX standpoint was that they could replace the model with something better suited to film in terms of resolution and usable angles. (That's roughly the same reason the Excelsior was built. Andy Probert's design for the Enterprise was fantastic, but the model didn't work well with ILM's equipment.)
Where did you hear any of that? The 6 foot Enterprise D model was wayyyyyyy more detailed than the 4 foot. And there is no way the Excelsior was built because the Enterprise Refit was impractical...
All of that was documented in Cinefantastique and other publications at the time. 
The only advantage the 6-foot Enterprise-D model had was that it was capable of the saucer separation.
And ILM's Bill George would disagree with you that the Enterprise refit was an impractical filming model.
The only advantage the 6-foot Enterprise-D model had was that it was capable of the saucer separation.
And ILM's Bill George would disagree with you that the Enterprise refit was an impractical filming model.
The 6 foot Enterprise D has the scale to include incredibly subtle and complex details the 4 footer didn't have, hence why they used it for Generations instead of the 4 foot model. The problem they had was with the sets, not the ship miniature.
I'm sure the Refit Enterprise was an incredibly complex model, that's inevitable when you want to achieve the level of craft they were going for. What I said was that there was no way that the Excelsior was built because of that...
I'm sure the Refit Enterprise was an incredibly complex model, that's inevitable when you want to achieve the level of craft they were going for. What I said was that there was no way that the Excelsior was built because of that...
They needed to use the 6-foot for Generations because of the saucer separation, even though it looked more unfinished than the 4-foot model. The 6-foot model had a smooth, unfinished surface, while the 4-foot model had a textured surface that depicted the detail the actual ship would have had.
The Excelsior was easier to work with because it was built to ILM's specifications. Even the Reliant model was easier for ILM to work with than the Enterprise model. The Enterprise model had two problems. It was too big for ILM's motion rig and didn't mate well to it. Plus, it had interior lighting that ILM found difficult to work with. ILM never expected to work with the refit Enterprise model again after Star Trek III; to their chagrin, they had to get it out of storage and clean it up for Star Trek IV.
The Excelsior was easier to work with because it was built to ILM's specifications. Even the Reliant model was easier for ILM to work with than the Enterprise model. The Enterprise model had two problems. It was too big for ILM's motion rig and didn't mate well to it. Plus, it had interior lighting that ILM found difficult to work with. ILM never expected to work with the refit Enterprise model again after Star Trek III; to their chagrin, they had to get it out of storage and clean it up for Star Trek IV.
I think that one major difference between TOS and TNG was that TOS was squarely built on the backs of Kirk, McCoy, and Spock. Occasionally when they needed somebody else they'd get one of the other minor characters to talk or do something. Uhuru opened hailing channels and Chekov was the Russian guy.
TNG, on the other hand, was an ensemble show, with Picard at the center of the character relationships. And unlike Voyager, where we were told that the crew was a familly, they really felt like a familly in TNG. The last time we see them in All Good Things is sitting around a table playing a friendly game of poker. I never really believed I saw this chemistry in the movies. They were all stiff and distant from each other.
But when the movies came around, they decided that the 'magic' of TNG was the intereactions between Picard and Data. Yes, yes, the Picard and Data show. I understand that you can only focus on so many characters in the span of a movie, but they could have said, "Okay, let's give Troi and Geordi a bigger part in this one," and then in the next one have Worf or Riker close to the top. That way it wouldn't be the Picard and Data show, it would be the TNG Ensemble, where the various characters have relationships between each other. (Freindly; cordial, lovers, whatever.)
Maybe the polling and testing audiences weren't famillar with who Troi and Riker and LeVar Burton were, but if they wrote a decent enough script they could inspire people to care about them.
TNG, on the other hand, was an ensemble show, with Picard at the center of the character relationships. And unlike Voyager, where we were told that the crew was a familly, they really felt like a familly in TNG. The last time we see them in All Good Things is sitting around a table playing a friendly game of poker. I never really believed I saw this chemistry in the movies. They were all stiff and distant from each other.
But when the movies came around, they decided that the 'magic' of TNG was the intereactions between Picard and Data. Yes, yes, the Picard and Data show. I understand that you can only focus on so many characters in the span of a movie, but they could have said, "Okay, let's give Troi and Geordi a bigger part in this one," and then in the next one have Worf or Riker close to the top. That way it wouldn't be the Picard and Data show, it would be the TNG Ensemble, where the various characters have relationships between each other. (Freindly; cordial, lovers, whatever.)
Maybe the polling and testing audiences weren't famillar with who Troi and Riker and LeVar Burton were, but if they wrote a decent enough script they could inspire people to care about them.
Similar threads
