FC is not a bad film. In fact I believe it is very good. However, I have come to see it as a tremendous missed opportunity.
FC has a lot of strong elements, and despite its more action oriented and trope driven story, still manages to retain many of the core Star Trek ideals. For years, I thought it was the most "TNG like" of the movies. And there are a lot of elements that capture the nuances of the series better than the other films. The briefing room scene, the cadence of how talk and work together has the groove and energy of many of the strong episodes of TNG (at least to my perception). But these weren't the only elements that made TNG unique or special. It really feels like they were trying to make a film that was more in the vein of the TOS films (2-6). They didn't write a story that highlighted and celebrated Picard's character for who he is and what makes him unique and distinct from Kirk. This was them trying to push the TNG characters and elements into a more event driven story.
As mentioned above, in I, Borg and The Drumhead, Picard acted in ways not too dissimilar to his depiction in FC - so it could be argued that he isn't acting completely out of character given the situation. But this isn't the character that made Picard unique and special - this is the traumatized Picard. There is nothing wrong in itself with this depiction - but the impact comes from seeing how it shakes Picard from his usual collected and intellectual persona. But they need to establish his normal persona for that to work - not everyone would have watch TNG. We see some glimmers of his normal persona when he and Data are in the missile silo but not enough to really establish the difference. Picard began the film in his trauma triggered persona. We weren't shown his "normal" persona to understand how he was being affected. They pushed him to his more damaged characterization to allow the character to function more like a Kirk analogue.
Instead of highlighting and celebrating his differences from Kirk (this was after all, the first Trek film not to feature Kirk so comparison were to be expected),
He is now front and center - beaming down right off the bat - leading the battle on the ship - these actions are more typical than Kirk than Picard.
I want to recognize and give credit to what the producers accomplished - Ron Moore, Brannon Braga, Jonathan Frakes and even Rick Berman. Generations, while profitable, had mixed reviews. While Picard was truer to his TNG character, he came across as more reactive and passive in that film. There was likely tremendous pressure from the studio to deliver something with more action, more like preceding Trek films and other action films. (not all that dissimilar of the course correct TWOK was after TMP). If they had to make TNG into TOS films 2.0, this was probably one of the best ways to do it. They even managed to include elements of hope and optimism with the first contact. And I think for that, they did an exceptional job of weaving the characters and utilizing their known history into something they weren't.
I wish we got something that better represented what the TNG was on the big screen. After Generations, this was their chance to show what TNG could be and highlight its differences. But I can't put all the blame at the studio and producers. They likely wanted to make something the fans wanted. At the time, I ate up all the "high-concept" episodes. I wasn't interested in seeing Picard talk through a problem or negotiate. I wanted things like Yesterday's Enterprise, Cause & Effect and BOBW. Not something like Darmok or Measure of a Man. And I looked to films like TWOK, TVH and TUC as the "real" Star Trek films. So I think they listened to what they heard from a lot of friends. It was the safer bet. Arguably it was the right call.
I really would have liked to a film that really highlights "TNG" Picard and lets his intellect, calm and wisdom shine and carry through. The question is, how to do it. I don't know that it could have been done profitably. I think much of the problem is that the character Picard in TNG works in spite of the paramilitary setting. TNG was a slow burn - it took a while for me to learn and develop affinity for Picard. They would have to accomplish this in a 2 hour film. Having to also carry the other characters and introduce them further complicates this issue. TNG was much more ensemble than TOS, which is great for a series, but becomes challenging for a film. I think this would have been easier if they could have gotten him off that ship or sidelined many of the other characters. Its telling that the scenes where he is truest to his TNG character are the ones off the planet (and to a lesser degree, the holodeck). I think if they stayed with the original idea of letting Picard stay on the surface while Riker went back on the ship, we would have had something much more in line with their TNG characterizations. Particularly him trying to talk up Cochrane - that seems a lot more up Picard's wheelhouse. I don't know if that would have made a better film - in fact I think it would have been weaker because with Patrick Stewart in the Cochrane story you would really have the two plots pulling apart from each other. You could have scaled the Borg part way back - drop the ship takeover plotline entirely - Enterprise follows the borg sphere back in time, blow it up and that's it - they are gone. Spend the rest of the film trying to fix damage to events they caused. Could have done a more nuanced take on Cochrane instead of the borderline caricature we got in the final film. But that's not going to happen in the first film to show Borg on the big screen. It would have to be a different threat or something to set the time travel in motion. And now you have something that is very tied to established trek lore, and an alien time to an alien time making it less accessible to the general public. Maybe bringing it closer to the present day - going beyond the compound to show more of the world might have helped ground it. But then it becomes more like TVH. Which while more accessible, did have huge exposition dumps in the first act that gave it a slower start.
I think it would have to have been something very different. Maybe even get off the ship and sideline most of the crew so you could focus on Picard. One of the successes of the series ST Picard was starting him at his vineyard removed from the Enterprise and his crew. This gave them space to show how Picard had changed in the last 20 years. But for the first solo TNG film with any of the TOS crew, good luck on selling Paramount on that.
As much as I try to untangle another solution in my head, I don't really think there was any way that 2nd TNG film was going to be anything significantly different from what we got. The Borg were the most popular enemy from TNG, so they weren't going to not use them. They had to make a new ship and sets so took the opportunity to change the look and aesthetic - and of course they were going to take inspiration from what was successful in the past. As @Donny discovered from doing his renders, much of the bridge set from FC came from the Enterprise A/B bridge. Compared to making a series where there is always a next episode if one episode is weak, making a film is putting all the eggs in one basket. With so much at stake, they were going to go with their strongest concepts. I think the only other way it could have gone was if the studio was willing to drop more money, they could have gone bigger done the whole movie in the 24th century. Whether they would have wanted to is another question. Because without the Cochrane subplot, the film loses much of its heart and humanity. It would have made the film darker and probably would have lost the audience. Ultimately, FC was what it had to be given the real world economics. Beyond minor tweaks, I don't really think there was any credible alternative to what we got.
FC has a lot of strong elements, and despite its more action oriented and trope driven story, still manages to retain many of the core Star Trek ideals. For years, I thought it was the most "TNG like" of the movies. And there are a lot of elements that capture the nuances of the series better than the other films. The briefing room scene, the cadence of how talk and work together has the groove and energy of many of the strong episodes of TNG (at least to my perception). But these weren't the only elements that made TNG unique or special. It really feels like they were trying to make a film that was more in the vein of the TOS films (2-6). They didn't write a story that highlighted and celebrated Picard's character for who he is and what makes him unique and distinct from Kirk. This was them trying to push the TNG characters and elements into a more event driven story.
As mentioned above, in I, Borg and The Drumhead, Picard acted in ways not too dissimilar to his depiction in FC - so it could be argued that he isn't acting completely out of character given the situation. But this isn't the character that made Picard unique and special - this is the traumatized Picard. There is nothing wrong in itself with this depiction - but the impact comes from seeing how it shakes Picard from his usual collected and intellectual persona. But they need to establish his normal persona for that to work - not everyone would have watch TNG. We see some glimmers of his normal persona when he and Data are in the missile silo but not enough to really establish the difference. Picard began the film in his trauma triggered persona. We weren't shown his "normal" persona to understand how he was being affected. They pushed him to his more damaged characterization to allow the character to function more like a Kirk analogue.
Instead of highlighting and celebrating his differences from Kirk (this was after all, the first Trek film not to feature Kirk so comparison were to be expected),
He is now front and center - beaming down right off the bat - leading the battle on the ship - these actions are more typical than Kirk than Picard.
I want to recognize and give credit to what the producers accomplished - Ron Moore, Brannon Braga, Jonathan Frakes and even Rick Berman. Generations, while profitable, had mixed reviews. While Picard was truer to his TNG character, he came across as more reactive and passive in that film. There was likely tremendous pressure from the studio to deliver something with more action, more like preceding Trek films and other action films. (not all that dissimilar of the course correct TWOK was after TMP). If they had to make TNG into TOS films 2.0, this was probably one of the best ways to do it. They even managed to include elements of hope and optimism with the first contact. And I think for that, they did an exceptional job of weaving the characters and utilizing their known history into something they weren't.
I wish we got something that better represented what the TNG was on the big screen. After Generations, this was their chance to show what TNG could be and highlight its differences. But I can't put all the blame at the studio and producers. They likely wanted to make something the fans wanted. At the time, I ate up all the "high-concept" episodes. I wasn't interested in seeing Picard talk through a problem or negotiate. I wanted things like Yesterday's Enterprise, Cause & Effect and BOBW. Not something like Darmok or Measure of a Man. And I looked to films like TWOK, TVH and TUC as the "real" Star Trek films. So I think they listened to what they heard from a lot of friends. It was the safer bet. Arguably it was the right call.
I really would have liked to a film that really highlights "TNG" Picard and lets his intellect, calm and wisdom shine and carry through. The question is, how to do it. I don't know that it could have been done profitably. I think much of the problem is that the character Picard in TNG works in spite of the paramilitary setting. TNG was a slow burn - it took a while for me to learn and develop affinity for Picard. They would have to accomplish this in a 2 hour film. Having to also carry the other characters and introduce them further complicates this issue. TNG was much more ensemble than TOS, which is great for a series, but becomes challenging for a film. I think this would have been easier if they could have gotten him off that ship or sidelined many of the other characters. Its telling that the scenes where he is truest to his TNG character are the ones off the planet (and to a lesser degree, the holodeck). I think if they stayed with the original idea of letting Picard stay on the surface while Riker went back on the ship, we would have had something much more in line with their TNG characterizations. Particularly him trying to talk up Cochrane - that seems a lot more up Picard's wheelhouse. I don't know if that would have made a better film - in fact I think it would have been weaker because with Patrick Stewart in the Cochrane story you would really have the two plots pulling apart from each other. You could have scaled the Borg part way back - drop the ship takeover plotline entirely - Enterprise follows the borg sphere back in time, blow it up and that's it - they are gone. Spend the rest of the film trying to fix damage to events they caused. Could have done a more nuanced take on Cochrane instead of the borderline caricature we got in the final film. But that's not going to happen in the first film to show Borg on the big screen. It would have to be a different threat or something to set the time travel in motion. And now you have something that is very tied to established trek lore, and an alien time to an alien time making it less accessible to the general public. Maybe bringing it closer to the present day - going beyond the compound to show more of the world might have helped ground it. But then it becomes more like TVH. Which while more accessible, did have huge exposition dumps in the first act that gave it a slower start.
I think it would have to have been something very different. Maybe even get off the ship and sideline most of the crew so you could focus on Picard. One of the successes of the series ST Picard was starting him at his vineyard removed from the Enterprise and his crew. This gave them space to show how Picard had changed in the last 20 years. But for the first solo TNG film with any of the TOS crew, good luck on selling Paramount on that.
As much as I try to untangle another solution in my head, I don't really think there was any way that 2nd TNG film was going to be anything significantly different from what we got. The Borg were the most popular enemy from TNG, so they weren't going to not use them. They had to make a new ship and sets so took the opportunity to change the look and aesthetic - and of course they were going to take inspiration from what was successful in the past. As @Donny discovered from doing his renders, much of the bridge set from FC came from the Enterprise A/B bridge. Compared to making a series where there is always a next episode if one episode is weak, making a film is putting all the eggs in one basket. With so much at stake, they were going to go with their strongest concepts. I think the only other way it could have gone was if the studio was willing to drop more money, they could have gone bigger done the whole movie in the 24th century. Whether they would have wanted to is another question. Because without the Cochrane subplot, the film loses much of its heart and humanity. It would have made the film darker and probably would have lost the audience. Ultimately, FC was what it had to be given the real world economics. Beyond minor tweaks, I don't really think there was any credible alternative to what we got.
