Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

[sonak]

The Picard/Data show attitude is just mind-boggling as it ignores just about everything that made TNG successful

Not so mind-boggling at all.

The first thing Robert Wise did after being signed to direct "In Thy Image" as a feature film was to ask, "Where is Spock?"

They then pursued Nimoy and offered him more and more until he agreed to participate. That elevated Nimoy from being Shatner's lower-paid co-star to getting a "favored nations" contract (comparable to the leading actor's perks and pay) and a settlement of a nasty, long-term, character-likeness approval dispute.

Both Stewart and Spiner (and their agents) played hard to get with their TNG movie contracts. Paramount could have risked going ahead without their two most popular stars. Or not. The rest of the cast were just happy, more or less, to get more work.

yes but Spock was undeniably the star and break-out character of TOS, and TOS wasn't an ensemble.

You could get rid of just about any of the TNG characters and it would not be that big of a deal.

Get rid of Spock and you've got an obvious and gaping hole. Still workable but very changed.

 

[22 Stars]

^ Yeah, you have Phase II, and it would have changed Trek forever. ST II and III is the closest we got to losing Spock, and look all of III is about how important it is to HAVE Spock with the group.

 

[Therin of Andor]

You could get rid of just about any of the TNG characters and it would not be that big of a deal.

Patrick, Brent, their agents and Paramount disagree with you.

"Generations" without the participation of Picard and/or Data would not have been tenable. Those actors' fan mail piles outnumbered everyone else's.

More likely, we'd have probably gotten a series of telemovies instead: the Riker and Troi show. But Paramount wanted movies, not telemovies. (Similarly, there were actual plans for telemovies with Saavik and David, had Nimoy refused to return after ST II and had Shatner's movie career took off the way he envisaged at the time.)

 

[sonak]

You could get rid of just about any of the TNG characters and it would not be that big of a deal.

Patrick, Brent, their agents and Paramount disagree with you.

"Generations" without the participation of Picard and/or Data would not have been tenable. Those actors' fan mail piles outnumbered everyone else's.

More likely, we'd have probably gotten a series of telemovies instead: the Riker and Troi show. But Paramount wanted movies, not telemovies. (Similarly, there were actual plans for telemovies with Saavik and David, had Nimoy refused to return after ST II and had Shatner's movie career took off the way he envisaged at the time.)

well of course "generations" wouldn't have been tenable because the plot is basically the Picard-Data show. The movie would've needed a complete re-write.


They were the stars, no doubt, but the show and the formula was not nearly as dependent on them as TOS was on Spock.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

Curious... if you split Insurrection into two parts, where would the cliff-hang be?

Remember the halves need to be about equal length. Don't recall off the top of my head what's happening at the mid-point of the movie's time.

I'm not sure how close it is to the middle of the film, but I could imagine the "Too be continued..." moment coming shortly after Data's "Lock and Load" line. The film has just revealed that our characters are going insurrect, so we know conflict is acomin'. Yeah, that seems to me like the right point to hang the cliff.

 

[Broccoli]

^ I'd say when Picard takes off his pips would be where the "To Be Continued" would be and Data's "Lock and Load" line would kick off the opening credits of "Part II".

 

[thumbtack]

Suddenly, the statesman-like, intellectual, accomplished diplomat of TNG is now an action hero.

In fairness to Stewart, he was tired of losing every single Kirk vs. Picard poll.

 

[Dr. Crusher]

^ It wasn't really that the writers found it difficult to do an ensemble story with the TNG cast. It's that they never tried. The studio believed their big draws for a feature film were Picard and Data, and the rest were treated basically like window dressing. No attempt was made to give any significant roles to the other members of the cast.

FC came the closest because it had a significant B-story working in tandem with the main A-story. And since Picard and Data were both involved in the A-story, it fell to characters like Riker, Troi, and LaForge to carry the B-story. It was still heavily Picard/Data weighted, and Crusher got virtually nothing to do, but it was the best effort at using the ensemble out of the four TNG films.

The Picard/Data show attitude is just mind-boggling as it ignores just about everything that made TNG successful as a TV series, but it does follow the standard Hollywood pattern of thinking "hey, we've got this enormously successful product, so we've got to change it."

I agree completely. The TOS movies had the combination of a really good plotline AND an ensemble-oriented story. That really made the movies work, and I think that is what made them so popular. I'm sorry that when the TNG movies were being developed, the writers/producers/directors didn't think back to that formula for success.

 

[plynch]

Original's characters are better/uniquer than TNG. Let's call Kirk and Picard a draw. Spock over Data, by a mile. Bones over Crusher by a mile. She's a female "nice guy." Riker? bland, nice guy. Geordi? Bland, nice guy. Troi is a bit weird (that's good), but "nice" with horrible acting. Worf is interesting.

But, Chekov: funny, quirky, goofy Russian accent. Uhura is spunky in the films. Scotty! Sulu is still a bit bland in the movies, I'll give you that.

Overall I'd go 70-30 as far as TOS' interesting-characters advantage over TNG.

PLUS the whole Jungian (not "Freudian," O poster upstream) individuation (non-dividedness) embodied by Kirk with Spock (reason) and McCoy (passion) on either side. Very fortuitous (inevitable, I think Jung would say) that Kelley rose from day player to costar, and with him the third part of the triumvirite.

 

[AFEK ESLCAFE W]

The TNG films came out in an era where there was far more studio interference than there were with the TOS films. There simply were too many cooks stirring the pot!

Seriously, instead of making -- for the lack of a better word -- "quality films" in their own right, the TNG film franchise tried to compete with other films that had nothing to do with its own genre. Picard aping Die Hard in the films being one of the prime examples.

Just imagine TMP with a whole laundry list of things to include from TOS like it was done with GEN; TSFS being re-written to the point where it didn't make much logical sense like INS; TUC being helmed by a non-director with a hack-script and choppy editting all over the place...

 

[Therin of Andor]

They were the stars, no doubt, but the show and the formula was not nearly as dependent on them as TOS was on Spock.

Oh yeah? You think audiences would flock to see a Picardless, Dataless ST movie starring Jonathan Frakes and Michael Dorn?

Nope.

The TOS movies had the combination of a really good plotline AND an ensemble-oriented story.

And ten years of fan yearning, and general populace curiosity, for a reunion/sequel to finally get made.

 

[sonak]

They were the stars, no doubt, but the show and the formula was not nearly as dependent on them as TOS was on Spock.

Oh yeah? You think audiences would flock to see a Picardless, Dataless ST movie starring Jonathan Frakes and Michael Dorn?

Nope.

The TOS movies had the combination of a really good plotline AND an ensemble-oriented story.

And ten years of fan yearning, and general populace curiosity, for a reunion/sequel to finally get made.

you keep asserting that Picard and Data were critical to the success of TNG based on nothing but repeating that assertion.

Remember that after "BOBW, part I" there was a possibility of Stewart leaving the show. Yet they weren't considering folding up the tents, they would have moved on with Frakes. And I'd argue that Worf was just as important to TNG as Data, which was why they kept bringing him back for the movies even though he was technically a DS9 character at the time of two of them.


Use the "argument from incredulity" all you want, but TNG was an ensemble show. TOS wasn't. You take away Kirk, Spock, or McCoy you've got issues. You take away Picard or Data you move on.

 

[BillJ]

You take away Kirk, Spock, or McCoy you've got issues. You take away Picard or Data you move on.

I definitely think a TNG film series could have moved forward without Picard and Data, but it would have been a very different film series as neither Generations or First Contact would've turned out the same. Whether it would've been better or not is, of course, debatable.

I thought DC Comics did a bang up job of giving us good stories between The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home. Stories such as The Trouble with Bearclaw, Maggie's World and The Doomsday Bug (which brought the comics back in line with the films) were compelling even with Spock being absent from the Enterprise/Excelsior crew.

 

[sonak]

You take away Kirk, Spock, or McCoy you've got issues. You take away Picard or Data you move on.

I definitely think a TNG film series could have moved forward without Picard and Data, but it would have been a very different film series as neither Generations or First Contact would've turned out the same. Whether it would've been better or not is, of course, debatable.

I thought DC Comics did a bang up job of giving us good stories between The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home. Stories such as The Trouble with Bearclaw, Maggie's World and The Doomsday Bug (which brought the comics back in line with the films) were compelling even with Spock being absent from the Enterprise/Excelsior crew.

While I love those comic stories(except Bearclaw is a too over the top jerk who wouldn't have lasted a day in Starfleet) I'm not sure they're a good indication of how movies without Spock would have worked.

 

[BillJ]

While I love those comic stories(except Bearclaw is a too over the top jerk who wouldn't have lasted a day in Starfleet) I'm not sure they're a good indication of how movies without Spock would have worked.

I think it does show that the right people can tell compelling Star Trek stories regardless of who is on the crew roster.

 

[Anwar]

Funny thing is, they could've easily moved on from Spock after WoK by having Saavik replace his archetype and have David fit into McCoy's (if they wanted to remove McCoy as well).

Then we'd still have the Freud archetypes that drove the trio's interactions, but the dynamics would be affected in that the Id was Kirk's son and the Superego was a female who may or may not have gotten romantically attracted to the Id.

But that would've just made Trek a bit soap opera-ish...

 

[plynch]

Funny thing is, they could've easily moved on from Spock after WoK by having Saavik replace his archetype and have David fit into McCoy's (if they wanted to remove McCoy as well).

Then we'd still have the Freud archetypes that drove the trio's interactions, but the dynamics would be affected in that the Id was Kirk's son and the Superego was a female who may or may not have gotten romantically attracted to the Id.

But that would've just made Trek a bit soap opera-ish...

I'm so glad you're keeping the idea of the archetypes alive.

They are Jungian, not Freudian, though, and the id, ego, and super are "parts" of our psyche as Freud envisioned. The id is the basic, animal survival urges. I don't think someone on TOS stood for those other than id-kirk in "Enemy Within." And superego is one's conscience internalized from one's culture, though there seem to be some cross-cultural universals. MAYbe McCoy, sometimes, arguing from ethics over Spock's rationality. Sometimes Spock, though.

I see them more as reason (Spock) and passion (McCoy) mediated through the whole-man hero, Kirk. You might be on to something with Saavik taking the place of McCoy for passion, as there is an archetype of the spunky, chaotic good female who is passion/nature. Princess Leia fits that role. Fun discussion.

 

[Therin of Andor]

you keep asserting that Picard and Data were critical to the success of TNG based on nothing but repeating that assertion.

Based on the fact that Stewart's and Spiner's fan mail quota was enormous in comparison to the other characters.

Remember that after "BOBW, part I" there was a possibility of Stewart leaving the show.

Yep, precisely why the feisty new character of Shelby was on hand to change the balance, if needed.

Yet they weren't considering folding up the tents, they would have moved on with Frakes.

And Elizabeth Dennehy.

And I'd argue that Worf was just as important to TNG as Data

Although the actor started off as a bit player, only signed as a regular during the filming of "Farpoint". Worf didn't even get an entry in the first edition of the TNG Writers' Bible. IIRC, Dorn's salary started off lower than the others, which also made him more affordable when switching series.

TNG was an ensemble show. TOS wasn't. You take away Kirk, Spock, or McCoy you've got issues. You take away Picard or Data you move on.

I'm not denying TNG was an ensemble show, but history has proven that Stewart, Spiner, their agents and Paramount agreed that those two characters transcended the intended ensemble. Paramount was not prepared to proceed with "Generations" without Stewart or Spiner.

 

[sonak]

you keep asserting that Picard and Data were critical to the success of TNG based on nothing but repeating that assertion.

Based on the fact that Stewart's and Spiner's fan mail quota was enormous in comparison to the other characters.

Remember that after "BOBW, part I" there was a possibility of Stewart leaving the show.

Yep, precisely why the feisty new character of Shelby was on hand to change the balance, if needed.

And Elizabeth Dennehy.

And I'd argue that Worf was just as important to TNG as Data

Although the actor started off as a bit player, only signed as a regular during the filming of "Farpoint". Worf didn't even get an entry in the first edition of the TNG Writers' Bible. IIRC, Dorn's salary started off lower than the others, which also made him more affordable when switching series.

TNG was an ensemble show. TOS wasn't. You take away Kirk, Spock, or McCoy you've got issues. You take away Picard or Data you move on.

I'm not denying TNG was an ensemble show, but history has proven that Stewart, Spiner, their agents and Paramount agreed that those two characters transcended the intended ensemble. Paramount was not prepared to proceed with "Generations" without Stewart or Spiner.

well OK, so the fan mail thing shows they were the stars. I'm not denying that, I just don't think either of them was indispensable to TNG. Paramount thought so , but there's no real way to prove a counter-factual.

I think that TNG was popular enough at the start of the movies that it could have absorbed the loss of one of the two. Not both obviously, but that would be a lot to expect of just about any show or movie to lose two stars at once and go on successfully.

Of course, Generations would have needed to be a very different film.

 

[Balrog]

^ I'd say when Picard takes off his pips would be where the "To Be Continued" would be and Data's "Lock and Load" line would kick off the opening credits of "Part II".

Good God, what Insurrection did not need was to be made into two-parts.