Why Star Trek MOVs are hit and miss...

[Vulcanian]

Here's why I think the Star Trek Movies are a hit and miss: BECAUSE THE EPISODES PRATICALLY ARE MOVIES

Look at "All Good Things", that was better than Generations. In order to feed the fans hunger, they have to be even more epic which is a high bar to set in and of itself.

Does anyone agree with me?

 

[ChristopherPike]

^ You're right and nothing beats the best the various TV shows had to offer, especially when they were building to the season's end.

I used to think it had something to do with the gap between each film... however Nemesis blew that theory outta the water! I just think it comes down to a zeitgeist, timing which borders on genius and plenty of luck.

 

[cardinal biggles]

You'll have that with any series that becomes as prolific as Star Trek has. You'd think they would save a little "something extra," since they're more expensive and less frequent, but that hasn't been the case, especially with the TNG films.

The TOS films, especially the first four, had an advantage over the TNG films; at the time, they were the only new Trek being produced. Their competition was 79 episodes of TV reruns and 22 half-hour cartoon shows being rerun on Nickelodeon. When you're the only game in town you can get away with films that are heavy on character and themes, and the action comes in brief sequences. Apart from whether the stories are better, the TNG films did little to distinguish themselves from what could be viewed every week for free via new episodes of DS9, VOY, and ENT.

It didn't have to be Lord of the Rings epic, but show and tell us things that can't be done on a TV budget (which, with CGI the way it is now, is increasingly difficult).

 

[DanTheGrey]

The comments about episodes is interesting though, because as far as I was concerned a movie like Insurrection was just a big budget mediocre TNG 2-parter.

Overall I just think that Trek movies that are successful just get elements copied and the ones copying them then tank which causes that spark of creativity back. The problem is that the last few movies from the TNG era just never seemed to catch the charm of the show, but what they were doing still felt like they were trapped inside a TV.

TMP/TWOK/SFS/VH all felt too big to be episodes. FF was just reach exceeding ability, TUC started back towards the earlier movie successes, and then we slide through TNG with the Borg somewhat saving FC. By INS/NEM I really felt that they were thinking too small and hoping the special effects shots would turn mediocre episode ideas into epic movies.

 

[sbk1234]

Too many trips to the well.

 

[Vulcanian]

However I do think some of the movies were good.

The Voyage Home, First Contact and The Wrath of Kahn are my favorites. Still I most of them can't capture 100% of the magic of the television show. Except for maybe FC, they made the characters interesting deep. The only thing that disappointed me was the fact that it wasn't really the end-all-be-all Borg film on the sliver screen.

 

[Data Holmes]

My issue with the films is two fold.

For the TOS crew films it was that they would pick one aspect of the multi-faceted show to focus on. The film series (TMP-TUC) was representative of all the facets, broken down. I still think that if you blended all of them together you'd have the best trek product.

For the TNG films, they all felt like episodes of the TV show. I can never figure out why that is, or how it would be fixable. But they don't feel like movies.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The success of the TOS films also owed a lot to nostalgia. We'd been ten years without new live-action ST. I reckon TNG films, taking place a full decade after the show went off the air, might have been more highly anticipated and appreciated. As it was, the four TNG movies are more like Season Eight; a few promotions, a few changes, but mostly the status quo is preserved.

 

[cardinal biggles]

That's certainly a possibility, though as you pointed out it was ten years between "Turnabout Intruder" and The Motion Picture. Even if the first TNG movie hadn't been made until 2004, would it have still been a big success if we'd still had DS9, VOY, and ENT on TV in the interim?

 

[Peach Wookiee]

It's possible, biggles.

 

[SmoothieX]

cardinal biggles said:
would it have still been a big success if we'd still had DS9, VOY, and ENT on TV in the interim?

Not as much as if there had been no Trek at all during that period. I'm foremost a TNG fan, but DS9 and ENT (not so much VOY) filled my Trek fix on a week to week basis.

While I would have been excited to see my favorite crew in a new adventure, some of my interest would have been satisfied by those other series.

 

[23skidoo]

cardinal biggles said:
It didn't have to be Lord of the Rings epic, but show and tell us things that can't be done on a TV budget (which, with CGI the way it is now, is increasingly difficult).

I think you hit the nail on the head. When even the most inconsequential TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT episode has superior production values to Wrath of Khan, it's becoming really hard for any show-based film to deliver anything the TV show can't do on a weekly basis. The X-Files movie was a prime example of this.

The only thing a movie can do that a TV show can't is be a little more freer when it comes to sexuality and language (see, for example, Data saying "shit!" in Generations). And even then, will the upcoming Sex in the City movie be able to offer anything different that HBO didn't already show?

I'm not saying that film producers should say, to hell with it, and not bother. And I don't think every film has to be hugely epic and be all space battles and no characterization (if nothing else, in Trek's case that would go against Roddenberry's principles). I think the attitude we should have towards these movies is that they're special because they provide us with "one more" adventure with familiar faces, whether it be the TOS crew in the first 6 films, or the TNG crew in the next 4.

Cheers!

Alex

 

[Michael]

^ I like your sig.

 

[Opus]

It is true that when I saw Insurrection I was thinking, "Why did I pay 8 bucks to see this when there is better Trek on TV for FREE." I had just seen DS9's season six war epic, which made Insurrection look like a skip in the park.

Then Voyager started playing around with the Borg, and let's face it: They treated the Borg WAY better than First Contact.

The TNG movies were very cheaply done, that is to say done on a TV budget with TV people, which brought nothing special to the table for people to go and see them in the theatre.

TOS movies did have the benefit of being the only game in town. People were a bit more starved for Trek the first 4 movies. Certainly the first movie benefitted the most being it was the first live-(in)action Trek filmed in 10 years.

 

[jayrath]

I think the TOS films benefited from advancing the characters, while keeping them IN character.

For the TNG movies, I lost interest pretty fast when the characters changed in ways never, ever suggested by the television series.

However -- the entire TOS/TNG film series has great hits and great misses. These are collaborative efforts, and therefore collaborative successes or failures. For my money, it all starts with a strong script.

Ain't got that? Then no hit!

 

[Data Holmes]

I still wish they had done a DS9 film. I mean, the DS9 crew seemed like the one that would push the product with the move into Films.


I still wish they had done a Voyager film, if only to see what Goldsmith could have done with the music. His theme for the show was amazing and it would have been worth what ever crud the B&B team had crapped out for that alone.

 

[CaptainStoner]

The TNG films were not done on TV budgets, not by a long shot. You can get some idea of the scope of it in the crew interviews on the "extras" discs with each film. I think the budgets for the films were more like half a season or more of the TV episodes.
I don't know, I guess the films are hit and miss as much as the episodes themselves can be, but then different episodes and films can impact us in IDIC, so its bound to go on.
I really hope the next film sparks a completely new series.
And though at the moment it seems as likely as a Vulcan joining the Merry Pranksters, there is certainly a wide range of story and film and anime possibilities in the TNG/DS9/Voyager era.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

^I think the weakness in at least one of the TNG movies was that it felt like a two-parter. It just wasn't strong enough.

 

[Oso Blanco]

I think the episodes/two parters were better because they were more or less made for the Star Trek audience, and nobody cared about if or if not people would catch certain references.

The movies were more or less made for the general audience, and the producers were trying to make them as comprehendable as possible for the average moviegoer by using simple story lines and bad humor. And that's the mistake! The TNG movies were too much Star Trek for the general audience and not enough Star Trek for the fans. I honestly think that a Trek movie made for Trek fans would have been a bigger success. Not because Trekkies only can make a movie a blockbuster, I know that. But they are kind of promoting the movie by telling other people that it's a great movie. But if even the hardest Trek fan is telling you that Nemesis sucks, would you go see the movie?

He who is trying to please everyone, will please no one!

The first time they used this tactic on a Trek tv show was Enterprise, and it failed horribly! They tried to attract non fans by the whole "this is a prequel and not your fathers Trek" crap, while they were alienating most of the fanbase. And they should have KNOWN it wouldn't work!

 

[rmkwebdesign]

Therin of Andor said:
The success of the TOS films also owed a lot to nostalgia.

^^ Agreed. I watched TVH the other night, looking for some good laughs...and while I did get some, I was struck with really how mediocre of a film it is. 20ish years later, it is a mediocre 1980's b-movie. Regardless of how much money it made, nostalgia is what keeps folks revering several of those old films.