What if... ETERNAL TIDE SPOILERS

[Hartzilla2007]

My major problem with Kirk's death in generations was that it seems to be the main reason he was even in the movie to begin with. I would have been happier if they had just left Kirk's story as finished in TUC and had just done a TNG movie instead of a halfassed attempt at torch passing despite already having done that in their pilot episode.

 

[Enterpriserules]

My major problem with Kirk's death in generations was that it seems to be the main reason he was even in the movie to begin with. I would have been happier if they had just left Kirk's story as finished in TUC and had just done a TNG movie instead of a halfassed attempt at torch passing despite already having done that in their pilot episode.

I agree with this as well. TUC was a fitting good-bye to the Original cast

 

[JD]

My major problem with Kirk's death in generations was that it seems to be the main reason he was even in the movie to begin with. I would have been happier if they had just left Kirk's story as finished in TUC and had just done a TNG movie instead of a halfassed attempt at torch passing despite already having done that in their pilot episode.

While I actually do actually like Generations, I have to agree with this. The Kirk stuff has always seemed almost pointless to the bigger picture. I've never really seen where the person Picard got out of the Nexus had to be Kirk. That stuff could have easily been done by pretty much anybody.

 

[Enterpriserules]

My major problem with Kirk's death in generations was that it seems to be the main reason he was even in the movie to begin with. I would have been happier if they had just left Kirk's story as finished in TUC and had just done a TNG movie instead of a halfassed attempt at torch passing despite already having done that in their pilot episode.

While I actually do actually like Generations, I have to agree with this. The Kirk stuff has always seemed almost pointless to the bigger picture. I've never really seen where the person Picard got out of the Nexus had to be Kirk. That stuff could have easily been done by pretty much anybody.

I like your line about it being anyone who could have done it, great point

 

[Christopher]

Well, again, I think the pivotal moment in that climactic scene is the one that tends to get overlooked, where Kirk climbed right out on the bridge after he'd almost fallen off it to his death. Most other people couldn't have done that. They would've hesitated to go back out on that bridge after barely getting off it alive, or would've wasted time trying to find some other way to get the remote, and thus wouldn't have been able to deactivate the cloak in time for Picard to prevent the launch. It took Kirk's special blend of courage, sense of duty, and sheer recklessness to be able to unhesitatingly go back out on that rickety bridge, and that's what made the difference.

Still, I'll concede that the story structure was a bit contrived based on the decision that they needed Kirk to pass the torch. Maybe if they hadn't rushed the film into production, if they'd taken a year off after the end of TNG and refreshed their creative energies before tackling GEN, they might've come up with something stronger. Although I think GEN still works pretty well, all things considered.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I'll go on the record as saying that I liked Generations. And I liked both it and Insurrection better than I liked First Contact or Nemesis (neither Borg nor Remans exactly thrill me), but I liked all of them.

 

[cml898]

Generations was always my favorite of the TNG films. I still remember how amazed I was seeing the crash sequence in the theater.

 

[Christopher]

Generations was always my favorite of the TNG films. I still remember how amazed I was seeing the crash sequence in the theater.

Yeah, that was intense.

 

[JD]

Well, again, I think the pivotal moment in that climactic scene is the one that tends to get overlooked, where Kirk climbed right out on the bridge after he'd almost fallen off it to his death. Most other people couldn't have done that. They would've hesitated to go back out on that bridge after barely getting off it alive, or would've wasted time trying to find some other way to get the remote, and thus wouldn't have been able to deactivate the cloak in time for Picard to prevent the launch. It took Kirk's special blend of courage, sense of duty, and sheer recklessness to be able to unhesitatingly go back out on that rickety bridge, and that's what made the difference.

I can see that. I just think it would have been more interesting if they had made it more personal for Kirk. Like if they had brought back one of the TOS villains, or had Spock or McCoy in danger. Just something that would have made Kirk's presence more important.

 

[Christopher]

^The producers invited Nimoy and Kelley to appear, but they declined.

And of course the point of this was that it was a TNG movie, not a TOS movie. It wasn't supposed to be centered on Kirk. It was passing the torch to the TNG cast, selling movie audiences on the new team and just using Kirk to ease the transition. He was there to be a special guest, not the center of the story.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I thoroughly enjoyed Generations.

Consider it's original concept though where the thought was to find a means to have the TOS crew and the TNG crew in conflict which each other. I understand that idea was ultimately rejected because 1. ship v ship, it would be no contest and 2. one of the crews would end up being portrayed as the bad guys or at least in the wrong.

Then it was decided to have a story where the crews work together in the plot. So we end up with Kirk and Picard working together to fight the anagonist and we get to see them get to know each other. Plus, in the battle, neither Picard or Kirk seemed to be in charge of the other but working together as equals. I loved that scene. Plus in the movie, Kirk died twice saving, not one, but two Enterprise crews. As we saw in the scene before the Nexus came, Picard fails without Kirk. Sure Kirk's final moments of death weren't glorious but his final hour was and Kirk was able to die knowing the battle was over and he made a difference. Many soldier's don't get that in the battlefield.


As to the original question for this thread, i'm glad Janeway wasn't killed in the end. Eden's sacrifice made more sense and seems to be what the character was designed to ultimately do and the Janeway fanatics would have gotten more militant about how their hero was resurrected just so the franchise could kill her again.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

And of course the point of this was that it was a TNG movie, not a TOS movie. It wasn't supposed to be centered on Kirk. It was passing the torch to the TNG cast, selling movie audiences on the new team and just using Kirk to ease the transition. He was there to be a special guest, not the center of the story.

And I still would have preferred he not be there at all especially since I would think almost a decade on the air and being a popular show would mean that they wouldn't need yet another torch passing to somehow justify TNG's existence.

 

[Christopher]

And I still would have preferred he not be there at all especially since I would think almost a decade on the air and being a popular show would mean that they wouldn't need yet another torch passing to somehow justify TNG's existence.

Again: the moviegoing audience was not identical with the TV audience. A lot of the target audience they had to draw in for the movie to succeed financially consisted of people who didn't already watch TNG and weren't familiar with these characters. It's just the nature of the business that if you adapt a work to a different medium, you're going after a different audience and have to start over with introducing the work and making it accessible. Of course the people who are already fans will follow you, but they're just going to be a portion of your audience. Assume it's enough to cater to the existing fans and you'll just alienate the new fans. Which doesn't make any sense as a strategy, because the whole point of moving to a different medium is to bring the work to a new audience.

So to a large extent, Generations had to be about drawing in the moviegoing audience that had followed the TOS movies, and that in many cases only followed Star Trek in movie form, or were only fans of the original series. It had to be about introducing those audience members to the TNG cast and selling them on what, to them, was a new change. Heck, that's probably a factor in why they dropped the TNG subtitle for the movies and just called them Star Trek.

 

[Enterpriserules]

And I still would have preferred he not be there at all especially since I would think almost a decade on the air and being a popular show would mean that they wouldn't need yet another torch passing to somehow justify TNG's existence.

Again: the moviegoing audience was not identical with the TV audience. A lot of the target audience they had to draw in for the movie to succeed financially consisted of people who didn't already watch TNG and weren't familiar with these characters. It's just the nature of the business that if you adapt a work to a different medium, you're going after a different audience and have to start over with introducing the work and making it accessible. Of course the people who are already fans will follow you, but they're just going to be a portion of your audience. Assume it's enough to cater to the existing fans and you'll just alienate the new fans. Which doesn't make any sense as a strategy, because the whole point of moving to a different medium is to bring the work to a new audience.

So to a large extent, Generations had to be about drawing in the moviegoing audience that had followed the TOS movies, and that in many cases only followed Star Trek in movie form, or were only fans of the original series. It had to be about introducing those audience members to the TNG cast and selling them on what, to them, was a new change. Heck, that's probably a factor in why they dropped the TNG subtitle for the movies and just called them Star Trek.

I completely agree with you, but I wish that the story was tighter and better. Passing the torch is great, but it deserved a better and more personal story for everyone involved

 

[Hartzilla2007]

And I still would have preferred he not be there at all especially since I would think almost a decade on the air and being a popular show would mean that they wouldn't need yet another torch passing to somehow justify TNG's existence.

Again: the moviegoing audience was not identical with the TV audience. A lot of the target audience they had to draw in for the movie to succeed financially consisted of people who didn't already watch TNG and weren't familiar with these characters. It's just the nature of the business that if you adapt a work to a different medium, you're going after a different audience and have to start over with introducing the work and making it accessible. Of course the people who are already fans will follow you, but they're just going to be a portion of your audience. Assume it's enough to cater to the existing fans and you'll just alienate the new fans. Which doesn't make any sense as a strategy, because the whole point of moving to a different medium is to bring the work to a new audience.

So to a large extent, Generations had to be about drawing in the moviegoing audience that had followed the TOS movies, and that in many cases only followed Star Trek in movie form, or were only fans of the original series. It had to be about introducing those audience members to the TNG cast and selling them on what, to them, was a new change. Heck, that's probably a factor in why they dropped the TNG subtitle for the movies and just called them Star Trek.

I completely agree with you, but I wish that the story was tighter and better. Passing the torch is great, but it deserved a better and more personal story for everyone involved

And possibly not bring a character back for what seems like the sole purpose of dieing (killing the character in itself isn't bad just don't have it be the primary reason their in the story to begin with) especially after you pretty much already wrapped up their story in a previous installment.

 

[Enterpriserules]

Again: the moviegoing audience was not identical with the TV audience. A lot of the target audience they had to draw in for the movie to succeed financially consisted of people who didn't already watch TNG and weren't familiar with these characters. It's just the nature of the business that if you adapt a work to a different medium, you're going after a different audience and have to start over with introducing the work and making it accessible. Of course the people who are already fans will follow you, but they're just going to be a portion of your audience. Assume it's enough to cater to the existing fans and you'll just alienate the new fans. Which doesn't make any sense as a strategy, because the whole point of moving to a different medium is to bring the work to a new audience.

So to a large extent, Generations had to be about drawing in the moviegoing audience that had followed the TOS movies, and that in many cases only followed Star Trek in movie form, or were only fans of the original series. It had to be about introducing those audience members to the TNG cast and selling them on what, to them, was a new change. Heck, that's probably a factor in why they dropped the TNG subtitle for the movies and just called them Star Trek.

I completely agree with you, but I wish that the story was tighter and better. Passing the torch is great, but it deserved a better and more personal story for everyone involved

And possibly not bring a character back for what seems like the sole purpose of dieing (killing the character in itself isn't bad just don't have it be the primary reason their in the story to begin with) especially after you pretty much already wrapped up their story in a previous installment.

Well put and my feelings exactly

 

[trekmom]

Hi! I'm new here.

Part of what I like about Trek is the endless possibilities. Somebody died? So what? There's always an omnipotent being, alternate reality, B4 android template, or some other type of solution. I'm glad Janeway is back. I do like the evolution that some of the characters have been through in her absence-especially Seven and Chakotay. But to answer the OP's question, IF Janeway had had to sacrifice herself instead of Eden, I would have expected it. Especially with the short forward that Bayer wrote-something like "It's an alternate reality, just go with it." For some reason, that made it sound to me like Janeway's return would be temporary. I couldn't put the book down during the last 20% or so (Kindle-no page numbers!) because I wanted to know if Janeway would survive. I missed her energy and enthusiasm. I also miss Voyager reruns on TV. Now I can't wait for the next book to see what happens!