Why didn't Q appear in any of the TNG films?

[22 Stars]

Ian, while I apprecitate your Trexpertise, I think the notion that DeLancie would have 'held up' the producers for a king's ransom is really silly. I worked at Paramount during the ENTIRE Sherry Lansing run and yes, we made the the cheapest possible films during that time. But negotiations for things like this are not always bloodthursty and base.

If they approaced DeLancie to be in a feature, they would have been generous to a point and within reason, and if DeLancie's agent hadn't agreed, they would have recast and rewritten and he would have lost a featured part in a 'major' motion picture. It happens a lot when actors pull out of films.

Kirstie and her agent talked herself out of a featured role in a subsequent Trek film and they just recast. Leonard agreed to die in II and then agreed to come back with the stipulation he direct III.

I just think your theories of absolute certitude regarding these things is unrealistic.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I just think your theories of absolute certitude regarding these things is unrealistic.

Sigh. "Absolute certitude". That must be the "hidden agenda" I'm always accused of. What's the point of anyone asking questions like "Why didn't Q appear in any of the TNG films?" if the only answer can be "We don't know"?

Of course I'm speculating. We all are. We aren't Sherry Lansing or Rick Berman and we can't know what went on in their heads unless they give an honest answer in an interview. Please note the statement in my sig under every post I make: "(Entire post is personal opinion)". Not sufficient, apparently.

Why are my posts interpreted as "absolute certitude", but everyone else can speculate wildly? Especially when my posts on these types of issues are often distilled from conversations I've had with actors and production people. Is it really essential that we preface every statement made on this board with "perhaps..." or "maybe..."?

Certainly, the several times I heard John de Lancie speak, he said that he had absolutely no expectation that he would be required for a TNG movie. (Probably because he knew that in-house motion pictures aren't written on spec the way that TV episodes are pitched and written.) He was surprised and pleased that they kept inviting him back for TV episodes. Sure, they could have written a Q movie without knowing if John de Lancie would do it, or was available/interested. And he probably would have done it. And his agent probably wouldn't have held Paramount to ransom. But they didn't. So he didn't. And the agent didn't. So what's the point of people asking these questions and us wasting our time throwing up arguments and counter arguments?

 

[22 Stars]

Ok, no worries, I just had to point out that if Berman, Stewart or Spiner really wanted DeLancie in a film they would have had him in a film.

I think it's clear by the direction that the TNG films took, that they were interested more in satisfying PS and BS. Q was very 'inside TNG' and could have been thought that he would ostracized the general movie public. The Borg were too, granted, but I think were more easily understood by a potential movie going audience and were less subtle and nuanced as Q being a 'funny/silly bad-guy', too much grey area to explore for these writers and producers in a two hour film.

 

[BriGuy]

It just seems to me you're assuming DeLancie would have turned it down or demanded too much, and that's why a movie with Q couldn't be done and wasn't done.

If Khan worked and the Borg worked, Q could've worked, I think. Q was prominently featured throughout TNG's run, from start to finish. He was high profile and, I think, known. And it wouldn't take long to "explain" him to anyone in the audience who didn't know him.

As for Q being too "magical" or "fantastical," heck, movies of all sort are chock-full of such characters, and not just sci-fi.

 

[22 Stars]

It just seems to me you're assuming DeLancie would have turned it down or demanded too much, and that's why a movie with Q couldn't be done and wasn't done.

Yeah, exactly.

I guess to sum it up, my best answer to the OP would be 'because they (the producers) didn't want him'.

 

[BriGuy]

Does anyone know if there ever was any consideration, serious or otherwise, to Q in a movie?

Or was their feeling that he was all done and wrapped up with AGT, and there was no need or reason to revisit him?

 

[Therin of Andor]

It just seems to me you're assuming DeLancie would have turned it down or demanded too much, and that's why a movie with Q couldn't be done and wasn't done.

No, I gave that as one example. I was discussing that movies aren't usually made that way in Hollywood. The possibility of the one actor who can play the main guest role turning down the script - for any reason: illness, other film work, fatigue, stage commitments - opens up the studio to unnecessary financial risk and delay. Add to that that Paramount's ST movies were often quite frugal compared to other blockbusters of the times.

Or was their feeling that he was all done and wrapped up with AGT, and there was no need or reason to revisit him?

According to John de Lancie, yes. As I said earlier.

 

[Broccoli]

Harve Bennett didn't have this problem with ST II because that script wasn't written in the hope that Ricardo Montalban was available or interested.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, how was it written? Did they sign Montalban before the script was written?

 

[Christopher]

^According to Allan Asherman's making-of book on TWOK, there were a number of proposals and drafts featuring Khan (and Marla), as well as a couple without them, written over the span of nearly a year before Montalban's signing was confirmed. But it's possible they could've been planning to recast the roles if the original actors couldn't be signed on.

 

[Dukhat]

Explain The Voyage Home! And The Motion Picture!

The villain in TVH was the whale probe. The villain in TMP was V'Ger. Sorry, did I forget to spoon-feed you the fact that villains don't always have to be mustache-twilrling Snively Whiplashes? And that their intentions don't always have to be evil?

 

[Broccoli]

Re: Christopher:

Again, playing devil's advocate, I wonder if they had an idea to use Q in a film, a similar approach could have been utilized.

 

[Christopher]

^But the only thing that makes Q work is John DeLancie. By itself, it's a silly, cartoony idea.

 

[sonak]

^But the only thing that makes Q work is John DeLancie. By itself, it's a silly, cartoony idea.

well if it is, it's an idea that's pretty similar to ones that have been used frequently throughout Trek(Trelane, the Thasians, the Dowd, the Organians, the Prophets, etc.) and in fiction in general(in comic books, it's basically Mxyzptlk)

Certainly De Lancie is what makes Q in particular so entertaining, but I don't see the idea of the character of Q so silly or cartoony.

 

[JarodRussell]

Explain The Voyage Home! And The Motion Picture!

The villain in TVH was the whale probe. The villain in TMP was V'Ger. Sorry, did I forget to spoon-feed you the fact that villains don't always have to be mustache-twilrling Snively Whiplashes? And that their intentions don't always have to be evil?

Oh, by villain you meant the obstacle the protagonist has to overcome. All Good Things didn't have a villain either. The time anomaly was the problem that needed to be solved.

 

[Herbert1]

It does make it very difficult to place the characters and/or the U.S.S. Enterprise in jeopardy in the story when a character who is omnipotent is included in the story.

 

[Therin of Andor]

But it's possible they could've been planning to recast the roles if the original actors couldn't be signed on.

Exactly. "The Making of ST II" by Allan Asherman suggests this, IIRC. The idea that Montalban might reprise Khan was not essential at the time of writing. Ditto the Dr Carol Marcus part, who was originally conceived as the return of Dr Janet Wallace ("The Deadly Years"), without the urgency that she be played by Sarah Marshall. Some script treatments featured Marla McGivers (Madlyn Rhue) as alive.

Montalban's availability also had to coincide with the hiatus for "Fantasy Island". It seems that sometime after filming on ST II, Montalban and Madlyn Rhue did an episode of "Fantasy Island" together, then she went into "Days of our Lives" as a recurring character, playing Daphne DiMera. Now, IIRC, by this time she was wheelchair-bound, as her MS had taken hold.

 

[xortex]

Wasn't Khan going to have some psi powers ?

 

[Dukhat]

Oh, by villain you meant the obstacle the protagonist has to overcome. All Good Things didn't have a villain either. The time anomaly was the problem that needed to be solved.

Yes, it's called an antagonist. Although I will admit that whether one thinks of an antagonist as synonymous with a villain is up to one's personal preference. The antagonist in the movie "Backdraft" was simply fire, but Robert DeNiro's character certainly leaves no doubt that he views fire as his enemy.

 

[xortex]

Antagonist is usually viewed as a person, not an obstacle, or problem. Villian is also usually viewed as an evil person.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Antagonist is usually viewed as a person

Tell that to "Jaws".