because the original show was better than Next Gen was.
Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
A telemovie, kicking off a series of Riker/Troi telemovies. But Paramount wanted a feature film series to replace TOS movies.
It seems like you think losing Picard is the bigger deal, with the concern that Frakes couldn't carry a movie series.
So do you think the movie series would have done fine without Brent Spiner?(obviously assuming major re-writes of the films, like a different sub-plot for Generations, etc.)
Personally, I think they could have gone on without Spiner, but Stewart was indispensable. He was the captain of the ship, and if you look back at the TV series many of the best episodes were episodes that he had a large role in. Here are a few:
The Inner Light
Darmok
Family
BOBW P1/P2
Tapestry
The Measure of a Man (both Picard AND Data)
All Good Things
While I love TNG and I love the ensemble cast, I feel like the show would have been missing something really important if Picard hadn't been there.
The Inner Light
Darmok
Family
BOBW P1/P2
Tapestry
The Measure of a Man (both Picard AND Data)
All Good Things
While I love TNG and I love the ensemble cast, I feel like the show would have been missing something really important if Picard hadn't been there.
I disagree. IMO, TNG is superior to TOS in every way possible; acting, writing, music, special effects, costumes, etc.
The reason the TNG movies were less of a success is because the writing was generally pretty sloppy, and in the case of Nemesis the acting wasn't all that great either.
Some people say that there was too much focus on Picard and Data, but I don't think that was the real problem; FC proves that if written well, Picard and Data in the main roles can work just fine.
I've watched many studios and sports teams make huge mistakes over the years because someone is "popular". I'm sure that Shatner and Nimoy both had far larger mail piles than Stewart and Spiner when TNG started. TNG was the proof that Trek was bigger than any single actor. I'm not sure it would've hurt the film series for Stewart and Spiner to have departed as movie Picard and Data bore little resemblance to their TV counterparts. With Star Trek it's always come down to the quality of the writing.
Star Trek became far too conservative under Bermans watch. Only making changes when they were absolutely forced to change. Creatively, live-action Star Trek went bankrupt (only DS9 attempted to break the mold but far too often fell back into Trek cliches).
As in all things, YMMV.
So did Paramount.
IIRC, so did Frakes, but that didn't stop Sirtis talking up such a show at conventions.
No, people would have complained bitterly that Data was absent.
Including me.
That's because in FC, everyone else had actually plenty to do.
They're not. The Meyer-Bennett-Shatner-Nimoy films were hokey hamfisted storytelling with lousy production values (they all were identified in Hollywood as "low budget genre films) and horribly forced humor and relationships. First Contact blows them away in any of these categories. Insurrection is also better. Generations suffers from MBSN hangover, while Nemesis, while still having superior production values, is a result of the same actor ego problem (Spiner and, to a lesser extent, Stewart) that gave us the atrocity of STV TFF. Given a choice right now to watch any Trek film, I would pick JJ Trek, followed by TMP and FC.
Yes, they were given things to do, but the main focus was still on Picard and Data.
yes, you can go right to TMP, with its superior production values, slow and tedious storytelling, thin plot borrowed from a TOS episode, stiff and awkward characters, and padded with a half-hour of special effects.
And ridiculous-looking uniforms.
it's more the Vulcan thing. I've always thought the Vulcans were neat, but didn't want to pick a really obvious one like Spock, Tuvok, Sarek, etc.
It didn't really have anything to do with TMP, it's just Sonak was (1) a Vulcan character and (2) relatively obscure.
The uniforms of TMP were non-martial, and Roddenberry wanted it that way- Starfleet was about exploration, not conquest. Meyer and company went with military uniforms- playing to base ideas.
The FC uniforms looked pretty martial.
Yes, the TNG unis were more martial. I think they went away from what Roddenberry wanted, and my point was the TMP unis were not "ridiculous", they tried to show that Starfleet was not a military organization. One of the things I liked about the "Enterprise" series was the utilitarian jumpsuit uni - much closer to Roddenberry's vision.
Um, but Starfleet clearly was at least somewhat military, as they were an organization responsible for defense, and that same movie shows them responding to a threat.
They travel around in ships that are armed to the teeth and fight in wars. Who does that sound like?
But at any rate, from just an aesthetic perspective, I prefer the look of the burgundy uniforms of the later movies, whether they were more militaristic or not.
