Why did production on GENERATIONS start so soon after TNG?

[Lance]

94 was practically billed as a "year of Trek" by the Paramount marketing machine. TNG ended with high ratings, a new series on the way on a new network in the fall, AND a movie by Christmas. If the internet had been bigger then they'd have had something all over that, too.

Am I misremembering, or do I seem to recall reading somewhere that the website for Star Trek: Generations was actually the first ever time that a movie studio had created a website specifically for the promotion of a movie? It happens all the time *now* of course, but I'm sure I remember seeing somewhere that they were the first...

I don't doubt that it was still a niche market at that time, though.

 

[Dukhat]

In retrospect, it might have been better had they waited and used new sets. As it is, the TV sets didn't stand up to scrutiny on the theatre screen, resulting in everything on board the Enterprise D being so damn dark. The ship had obviously been refitted (changes to the bridge, new stellar cartography) so they could get away with other changes to the interior.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with this too. The interior sets of the Ent-D looked like shit (the worst offender being Riker walking out of Picard's ready room into pitch blackness). But we can all say that "I wish Generations had come out a year or two or three after TNG ended," but that wasn't Paramount's plan. They gave three TV producers the reigns to make a feature film, they wanted it done yesterday, and they wanted all kinds of specific things done in the film (Kirk MUST die, the Enterprise MUST be destroyed, etc.) To top it all off, dumb decisions were made by people like Jeri Taylor that resulted in a lot of the budget being spent on a pointless holodeck scene, most of the other budget on a pointless stellar cartography scene which was just an attempt to show some "cool," and Shatner's and McDowell's exorbitant salaries.

Yes, the set factor and the intermediate period between TNG and VOY definitely had something to do with the timing of the film, but those weren't the only factors contributing to its mediocre performance.

Of course, they wouldn't want to sink so much money on new sets since the plan was to destroy the D anyway, but they could get around this by not destroying the D.

Well, if they took my advice, then they would have used the Enterprise-A at its decommissioning ceremony instead of the Ent-B. Both Kirk and the ship would have disappeared into the Nexus, only to have Kirk fly it out in the 24th century to save the Ent-D from crashing onto Veridian III

But again, that's not what they wanted.

 

[Noname Given]

You'd think even just going for the money, they'd know that putting some distance between the show and the debut film would build more hype and draw more people in theaters. In the end, it only turned out to be marginally more successful than THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY.

Or as they say in the flick: "That's a pretty big margin of error", "TOO BIG".

^^^
Nope. It won't. IF TNG's rating were falling when it was cancelled, you might have a point; but they were following a formula pioneered by 'Batman' (that series first season was so popular with kids, they did and released the 1967 feature film from the series over the summer hiatus and made a bundle.

Since TNG was ending on a high note; they figured they'd get every TNG fan (plus the casual audience) into the theatres before TNG started fade from memory from all but the die hard Trek fans.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

As I remember, they wanted to do it while they still had the standing sets. Production on Voyager was set to start after GEN wrapped, so the TNG sets would have to be taken down to make room for the new VOY sets.

I may be remembering wrong, but that's how I remember it.

In retrospect, it might have been better had they waited and used new sets. As it is, the TV sets didn't stand up to scrutiny on the theatre screen, resulting in everything on board the Enterprise D being so damn dark. The ship had obviously been refitted (changes to the bridge, new stellar cartography) so they could get away with other changes to the interior. Of course, they wouldn't want to sink so much money on new sets since the plan was to destroy the D anyway, but they could get around this by not destroying the D.

I always assumed that was just a stylistic choice between the Carson and Alsonzo. I actually prefer how it looks in this film compared to how Rush shot TNG. My favorite being Ten Forward, with the sunlight shining through the windows. It was nice to see the Enterprise D given a much more cinematic look, only rivaled by Rush's great work in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

You'd think even just going for the money, they'd know that putting some distance between the show and the debut film would build more hype and draw more people in theaters. In the end, it only turned out to be marginally more successful than THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY.

Or as they say in the flick: "That's a pretty big margin of error", "TOO BIG".

^^^
Nope. It won't. IF TNG's rating were falling when it was cancelled, you might have a point; but they were following a formula pioneered by 'Batman' (that series first season was so popular with kids, they did and released the 1967 feature film from the series over the summer hiatus and made a bundle.

Since TNG was ending on a high note; they figured they'd get every TNG fan (plus the casual audience) into the theatres before TNG started fade from memory from all but the die hard Trek fans.

I seriously doubt that, considering that TNG reruns were airing regularly throughout the 90s. It wasn't losing audiences until the quality had sunk so low with INSURRECTION and then NEMESIS being the death knell. In a way, I'm surprised more turned up for FIRST CONTACT, given how GENERATIONS is generally agreed as a disappointment.

 

[Shat Happens]

Generations made me literally ashamed of being a fan.

We went to see it, me (trekker), my gf (trekker), my friend (trekker) and his new gf (non-trekker wanting to know what was all that fuzz about).

She must have thought we were 3 idiots.

 

[urbandefault]

94 was practically billed as a "year of Trek" by the Paramount marketing machine. TNG ended with high ratings, a new series on the way on a new network in the fall, AND a movie by Christmas. If the internet had been bigger then they'd have had something all over that, too.

Am I misremembering, or do I seem to recall reading somewhere that the website for Star Trek: Generations was actually the first ever time that a movie studio had created a website specifically for the promotion of a movie? It happens all the time *now* of course, but I'm sure I remember seeing somewhere that they were the first...

I don't doubt that it was still a niche market at that time, though.

It was mid '96 when I got a computer and went online, so I missed that. But what eventually became startrek.com started out as a pay site. That was disappointing.

 

[Lance]

Confirmed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Generations#Reception

Generations's marketing included a web site, the first on the internet to officially publicize a motion picture. The site was a success, being viewed millions of times worldwide in the weeks leading to the film's release at a time when fewer than a million Americans had internet access.

 

[austen_pierce]

IMO enough time had passed since TUC. Given that GEN was billed as a captain-crossover, Paramount wanted to make sure Original-Crew fans retained interest and bought tickets.

 

[BillJ]

...Paramount wanted to make sure Original-Crew fans retained interest and bought tickets.

I don't think so. TOS fans had been reliably buying tickets for fifteen-years at that point. I don't think waiting another year would've affected that in the slightest.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

GENERATIONS, no matter when it was released, was guaranteed to put butts in seats because of the Kirk/Picard team up alone. Had it been a better movie, I think it would have done much more impressive box office run than simply doing the same business that TUC did, successful at the box office, but nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Makarov]

I still think Generations could have been saved by a 10 minute long choreographed fist fight between the two captains.

 

[Smellmet]

I thought the interior of the Enterprise D translated superbly to the big screen it looked far more polished and luxurious than the crappy made for TV Enterprise E interior sets, probably down to the excellent cinematography in Generations.

Horses for courses I guess...

 

[Lance]

I still think Generations could have been saved by a 10 minute long choreographed fist fight between the two captains.

On the collapsing bridge. While Soren watches, with a perplexed "What's up with these guys?" look on his face.

I thought the interior of the Enterprise D translated superbly to the big screen it looked far more polished and luxurious than the crappy made for TV Enterprise E interior sets, probably down to the excellent cinematography in Generations.

Horses for courses I guess...

Yeah, never really understood where the whole 'Ent-D sets weren't good enough for cinema' comment was coming from. Especially given many of the sets migrated from the movies in the first place! I too preferred what was done with them in GENS to the bland, uninteresting, generic sci-fi-channel-movie-of-the-week feel I always get from the Ent-E sets.

 

[drmick]

I thought the interior of the Enterprise D translated superbly to the big screen it looked far more polished and luxurious than the crappy made for TV Enterprise E interior sets, probably down to the excellent cinematography in Generations.

Horses for courses I guess...

That's sarcasm...... right?!?!

 

[austen_pierce]

wasn't the biggest reason conservation of time and resources? Weren't both "All Good Things" and Generations being produced at the same time? All hands on deck and all that...

 

[Leto_II]

Production on Generations involving the TNG cast commenced just days after filming wrapped on "All Good Things...", although the Enterprise-B sequences involving Shatner, et al, had been shooting for a few weeks prior to this already.

So yep -- you could pretty much almost refer to them as a single, continuous production, apart from the differences in shooting-crew (the TV crew on the finale, versus the feature-film crew behind the scenes on Generations).

 

[Mr Pointy Ears]

If u listen to the writers commentary they say because they were writing the script for both generations and all good things they couldn't remember what happens to the characters,think it would of that been better if someone else wrote generations or waited a year to do the movie and give the cast and crew time to relax and prepare for the big screen.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Trek in the 90s was like the Marvel movies of today..rolling em off the conveyor belt as quickly as possible

 

[Smellmet]

I thought the interior of the Enterprise D translated superbly to the big screen it looked far more polished and luxurious than the crappy made for TV Enterprise E interior sets, probably down to the excellent cinematography in Generations.

Horses for courses I guess...

That's sarcasm...... right?!?!

No

 

[The Wormhole]

Trek in the 90s was like the Marvel movies of today..rolling em off the conveyor belt as quickly as possible

Actually, compared to Marvel today, 90s Trek showed remarkable restraint. Boy, when Marvel burns out, they're going to fall hard.