Why the moviesl killed TNG

[GalaxyX]

I was going to post this in the "Nemesis sucked" thread, but since it spans all the TNG movies, I figure it was worth it's own thread.

TNG was dead since the first movie came out. I'm not sure who the blame goes to, but it's like someone sat there with a checklist to make sure it happened:

Generations:

- Have obligatory scene with TOS crew for the 1st 10min but not essential to the story - Check
- Have plot contrived anomaly that makes zero sense - Check
- The pride of not doing a time travel story - Double Check
- Have 1 non sensical villain with 2 clown sidekicks - Check
- Have "crazy comedian Data" just for kicks - Check
- Kill Kirk - Triple Check
- Destroy the Enterprise D - Triple Check
- Feel pride that you were so edgy in killing the biggest hero in Trekdom - Quintuple Check (Ron Moore, I know this was YOUR idea you fucking asshole!!)
- Feel pride that you destroyed my favorite ship - Check

First Contact:

- Action Hero Picard - Check
- About 1 minute of actual ship to ship Borg Battle - Check
- Make the rest of the movie a "T2 time travel" plot, ignore the fact that it would have worked so much better in Generations - Double Check
- Have Zeffram Cochrane be a low life drunk who singlehandedly invented what top NASA physicists and engineers have been unable to do - Check
- Have Troi get drunk because, you know, it's so funny - Check
- Data has implied sex, again! - Check

Insurrection:

- Defend a race that is just as advanced as you are, but choose to "shun" their tech in some weird moral sense - Check
- Crazy loony Data - Check
- Run away from enemy flying drone things for 70% of the movie - Check
- Bad boob jokes - Check
- Ah, a joystick pops out of the Enterprise's control systems - Check
- Villains not evil, simply misunderstood - Check

Nemesis:

- Shinzon looks nothing like Picard - Check
- Picard's photo of "himself" as a young man (desperate attempt to associate Shizon to him) - Check
- Make Schimitar look like the Andromeda Ascendant - Check
- Turn off all lights on the ship - Check
- Replace senior staff with cardboard cutouts - Check
- Kill Data - Triple Check
- Blatantly rip off TWOK and not only admit it, but glorify in it - Triple Check.

Result = TNG dead, and deep fried.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Anyone can do the exact same thing you just did with the first 6 movies - check.


Here I thought you were going to give an enlightened global issue to the movies. Every movie has independant problems, and your checklist seems to be pretty specific, not actually a checklist for what makes a bad movie in general.

You know, a global checklist that applies to ALL the movies, like, "Picard is the action here in a TNG movie? Check. Picard and Data are the only 2 characters that get the focus and screen time? Check."

 

[Shaw]

Maybe this will help clear up the real issues with Trek movies... ALL Trek movies (including the next one).

I think that Trek is sort of like a game of football. You make advances, you loose yardage, but it is all done with short strategic plays driving down the field. Sure, you have the quarterback who the team revolves around, but any number of other players can make a significant difference, and the quarter back doesn't even need to be on the field for the excitement to continue.

The Trek movies are all just Hail Mary Passes and little else. You've got the quarter back and one or two receivers in the end zone, everyone else is running interference, and you have one play every few years.

Oh sure, everyone once in a while that combination can make for exciting results, but when the audience already knows the playbook has only one page and what is on that page, the reason for going starts to die off.

The success or failure on the Trek movies has nothing to do with the Hail Mary Pass being completed... it has to do with not making every movie be based on a Hail Mary Pass to begin with.



Trek has ensemble castes because it is aimed at being a television series. Attempting to keep that formula for the movies basically makes the member's not directly part of the story a side show.

If I were directing Star Trek XI, I would get rid of everyone except Kirk, Spock, Pike and maybe McCoy. For this story, don't even cast the other parts. Don't weaken Trek by forcing what worked for television into a film format, play to what works for films.



The other primary issue is story verses special effects. These days Trek has taken on the role of 4th of July Fireworks. Any trek story that doesn't have the audience questioning their own position on some aspect of life is a failure. The best Trek episodes of all the series, the ones that were universally liked by fans and non-fans alike, had the least amount of effects.

Other than story placement, effects should be at an absolute minimum. Don't indulge the fans who want all space battles, all the time. Sure, they'll flock to it like kids to candy... but it drives everyone else away, and even the kids will get board with it eventually.

It should be story first... and drop any type of save the universe plots. Don't over reach with stories, try to touch the audience with them. This is something that Trek is really good at, while at the same time has completely failed to do in the films.

 

[Admiral Bear]

I've often thought why the TNG movies were, in the main, as bad as they were. Over time, I've come to these conclusions.

The main fault resides with the writing and story structure of the TNG tv show. Where as TOS was character driven, TNG was nearly all science and technobabble driven. After 3 seasons of TOS, everyone knew who James T Kirk, Spock etc were, but who really knew who Picard, especially Riker, or any of the others were after all SEVEN seasons of TNG?

When it came to the TNG movies, there was no natural characterisation. Anything done to show us who the crew were was false and forced. The TOS movies had great characterisation and the scripts were far better because of that. The plots didn't have to be pushed along with lame TNG plot devices because the characters' long established personalities and interaction with each other moved the stories along.

Secondly, the TOS films weren't two hour long versions of the TV show. There were no brightly coloured 60's sets and silly uniforms. Every thing changed in the TOS movies except the characterisation. The movie era million dollar budget sets, special effects and new writers set the films apart from the tv show. It was all fresh and new.

With TNG, there was no difference. The writers, sets, ships, uniforms and characters (I say characters in it's loosest sense) were all the same. They were drawn out, souless, action set piece, deuce ex machina driven TNG tv episodes written by people who'd never written a film script in their life.

Picard was never a character that could lead a film, and Patrick Stewart as an action man, well I've never seen anyone so often ill at ease. Kirk was a film leading action man, and Bill Shatner was more than able to fill the character and get Kirk to drive the TOS films forward with Nimoy, Kelley and Doohan.

Despite the above last sentence, the TOS films were still ensemble casting, each main cast member was featured and had their important parts to play without them being shoved in just for a 30 second appearance. TNG films were all Picard and Data, with the other actors shoved in to gaps in the scripts so they could get paid. Marina Sirtis' embarrassing turn as a drunk in First Contact is a prime example of this.

Blame Berman, Moore, Braga and the suits at Paramount for what the TNG movies became.

 

[T'Cal]

Re: Why the movies killed TNG

I agree that sending the crew off to the big screen ruined TNG. I blame the producers for letting go of the ensamble cast concept and trying unsuccessfully to use the triad concept that worked all along for TOS. TNG movies focused too much on Picard, Data, and the obligatory bad guy (or girl in the case of FC). The rest of the crew got the short end of the stick. In addition, the writers' attempts at humor more often than not lame. They often handled Data and Worf awkwardly at the expense of cheap jokes (i.e.: "It is awful!", "Oh, shit!", "You still remember how to fire phasers, right?", "It made me sick to my stomach", "Assimilate this!", "It is a gorch.", "Definitely feeling aggressive tendencies!", "Move, puny human animal!", etc.). They became mere shadows of the deep, rich characters that 7 years of television created. Pity.

I would've been much happier if TNG had stayed on TV for a few more years and in the seasons 6 & 7, major characters started moving on to other assignments and were replaced by new and very different ones. Moving Worf over to DS9 might have happened after he and Deanna broke things off. Perhaps if Riker had accepted a promotion to captain he would have been the C/O of Voyager for that series. Nothing against Janeway/Mulgrew; I like the character and the actress but found Chakotay lacking. Perhaps she could've been Will's Maquis XO. I could see moving Data (sans emotion chip) up to the XO for Picard. With Data moving up to XO, a new character could've been added as OPS manager and 2nd officer. While NEM had its problems, Data's sacrificial death was handled wonderfully, with the exception that B4 survived. Having Data similarly sacrifice his life to save the Enterprise in series-ender would've worked very well. With Wesley and Ro gone, they would've needed a new helmsman. Perhaps it could've been an alien (Bolian, Naussican, or perhaps Vulcan). I don't think the technology was available then to have a regular CGI character but I've always hoped that we'd see one that was non-humanoid, one that was so 'alien' that an actor could not have played the role other than to provide a voice. I would've like to have seen more of Jellico, too, perhaps as an admiral that issues assignments to Picard on occasion.

Having TNG continue longer on TV would've brought it into the Dominion War and would've offered the opportunity for some crossover or at least related episodes with DS9. The movies were good for the most part but not nearly as good as the TV episodes. I think the era for TNG, DS9, and VOY works much better on TV and hope that we will see regular miniseries that cover this time period with many of the characters from all three plus some new ones.

 

[SiorX]

- Feel pride that you destroyed my favorite ship - Check

I'm such a fangirl sometimes. I spent ages trying to work out which ship was destroyed by GEN before I realised what you meant.

Admiral Bear, I'm not sure if I entirely agree with you. I think it's true that because of the scifi/puzzle format of the show, character development in TNG was downplayed. However, I do think we come away from the show knowing who these people are and how they would react in certain situations. For me, one of the most jarring elements of the Next Gen movies was the failure to keep the characters whom we knew "in character".

I'm a character-oriented type. The bangs and flashy lights mean absolutely nothing to me, but I'll happily watch a film with a ridiculous plot, or with no plot at all, for the sake of good characters. TNG for me is all about the characters. I think the fault with the movies is not that they had no strong personalities with which to work, but that the style of character interaction which made TNG what it was was something they failed to incorporate.

It's not so much that Picard's not a character who can lead a film, I think, but that Picard's character is so dependent upon the democratic style of Next Gen, when you cut him loose from the rest of his crew he becomes a shadow of what the character was in the show.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Admiral Bear, I oddly think I strongly disagree with every single paragraph you wrote.

But at first, I think you were on the right track.

So many of the episodes were character driven, some of the best, like "Family", "Brothers", "Sins of the Father", had basically no technobabble at all. The characters presented to us was what brought people back every week. And, sure, some very sci-fi stories, but under Michael Piller and continuing with Moore, character became VERY important.

And THAT was the problem with the movies. That was taken away to be replaced by the action and space battles that fit more with the summer blockbusters. The shows were quieter and pensive.

Basically, everything SiorX seems to say quite well.

(And for the record, I love all the movies, some more than others. Yes, even Nemesis. That doesn't mean I can't see why the crowds weren't blown away by what was on screen, though.)

 

[HRHTheKING]

FC was a good movie.

But GEN, INS and NEM were poor.

They would have been at best, average episodes of TNG.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

FC was a good movie.

But GEN, INS and NEM were poor.

They would have been at best, average episodes of TNG.

I'd say that GEN is worse than any TNG episode, except perhaps for a couple of episodes that I didn't care for. At least it made possible for The Return, which is good enough for me... But the film IS terrible, and the destruction of the Enterprise-D after 7 great years, was pointless.

FC is fantastic, like the polar opposite to GEN. It actually felt like a TNG Relaunch, in a sense, you know?

INS was a dissapointment, especially coming after FC. Still, if seen as a TNG special hour, it can be mildly enjoyable.

NEM is so-and-so. I kinda like it, but its not as excellent as an even-number film should be. Easily the worse even-numbered Trek film - and thats sad, when there was a good chance of excellence here. But no, Berman just had to bring an total no relation to Trek, whatsoever.

Where's Nick Meyer when he's needed?

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

But the film IS terrible, and the destruction of the Enterprise-D after 7 great years, was pointless.

Especially compared to the destruction of the 1701 in TSFS, which was part of the plot and had an obvious emotional impact on Kirk and his crew ("My God, Bones, what have I done?"). Whereas the destruction of the 1701-D seemed totally pointless and had zero to do with the plot of the movie (such as it was). Even worse, Picard and Crew didn't seem to care much that the ship they'd served on for 7+ years was an unsalvageable wreck. Kirk's death was Shakespearean in comparison.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

Especially compared to the destruction of the 1701 in TSFS, which was part of the plot and had an obvious emotional impact on Kirk and his crew ("My God, Bones, what have I done?").

Precisely. Enterprise's destruction in TSFS was meaningful, and served a purpose - and had an impact, as noticed by Scotty in "Relics".

Whereas the destruction of the 1701-D seemed totally pointless and had zero to do with the plot of the movie (such as it was). Even worse, Picard and Crew didn't seem to care much that the ship they'd served on for 7+ years was an unsalvageable wreck.

Indeed. Whats worse, Picard doesn't even bother a number of stuff he supposedly cared for a great deal - like that temple miniature from Professor Galen, for instance. It didn't seem natural a sacrifice - because I don't think it was treated as such. It was treated, like with Kirk's death, as an afterthough. Like, "Oh, we have to destroy the thing right now".

Kirk's death was Shakespearean in comparison.

... which again, was an afterthought rather than a natural progression of the plot/story. As if there he had to die in order for the film to live up to, er, something.

I only liked the death speech there, and only because it was retroactively honored in The Return.

 

[Admiral Bear]

- Feel pride that you destroyed my favorite ship - Check

Admiral Bear, I'm not sure if I entirely agree with you. I think it's true that because of the scifi/puzzle format of the show, character development in TNG was downplayed. However, I do think we come away from the show knowing who these people are and how they would react in certain situations. For me, one of the most jarring elements of the Next Gen movies was the failure to keep the characters whom we knew "in character".

Marina Sirtis trying to act drunk, as I mentioned above. Also, the scenes from Generations with Data and his emotion chip.

I'm a character-oriented type. The bangs and flashy lights mean absolutely nothing to me, but I'll happily watch a film with a ridiculous plot, or with no plot at all, for the sake of good characters. TNG for me is all about the characters. I think the fault with the movies is not that they had no strong personalities with which to work, but that the style of character interaction which made TNG what it was was something they failed to incorporate.

I agree, but if you'd had that interaction, you'd likely have had a very Nemesis style talkie movies with little action.

It's not so much that Picard's not a character who can lead a film, I think, but that Picard's character is so dependent upon the democratic style of Next Gen, when you cut him loose from the rest of his crew he becomes a shadow of what the character was in the show.

Which kinda results in Picard not being a character which can lead a movie. If you see him as the glue which held the main cast and it's democratic decision making processes together during the series, take away all the crew bar Data except for cameo appearances in the movies, and what are you left with? A pot of glue with no purpose.

For all the slating of Generations, I don't despise it as much as I used to. It did far more wrong than right, but I think it had the best TNG cast movie character development. I always liked and still do like Kirk and Picard's scenes inside the Nexus, and the scene right at the end inside the wrecked Ent-D Bridge with Picard and Riker. It's the only time in 4 movies that they had a meaningful conversation with each other that showed characterisation and without the need for it to push the plot. Although rushed, I thought it to be a decent send off for the old bird.

I can't explain why I kind of like Generations. I know I shouldn't, but I do.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Though I don't necessarily agree with the OP's choice of style, it does present more evidence Star Trek really doesn't belong on the big screen.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

Though I don't necessarily agree with the OP's choice of style, it does present more evidence Star Trek really doesn't belong on the big screen.

Er, how about the first 4 and the sixth one?

 

[CaptainJon]

...and the scene right at the end inside the wrecked Ent-D Bridge with Picard and Riker. It's the only time in 4 movies that they had a meaningful conversation with each other that showed characterisation and without the need for it to push the plot. Although rushed, I thought it to be a decent send off for the old bird.

I love that scene! It was way too short, but that's a good thing, though, because it means that it was something that we wanted more of, and that can't be said for many scenes in the TNG movies. Like you said, it was really Picard and Riker's only scene together in all 4 movies, and that's a shame because the two of them had a really strong bond that developed during the course of the series. The only other scene that attempted to give these two a chance to interact was Riker's farewell at the end of Nemesis, and that was a major missed opportunity because not only was the mentor-student/father-son chemistry not there, it was just poorly written. Fourteen years together and all you have to say is "It's been an honor"? Where's the "passing of the torch"? Picard should've given Riker something as he took on his own command, not just a poor piece of advice about away missions. It was well acted, it was just poorly written.

That's why I love the scene at the end of Generations so much, because it was probably the only 100%-true-to-TNG-characterization-and-interaction moment in the TNG movies!

 

[Ghel]

It's kind of interesting, every time that the TOS vs TNG films comes up, someone mentions that TOS felt more epic and far different than the TV series, while TNG felt too similar to the series.

What is interesting about this is that TOS ended in the late sixties and the first film was shot almost a decade later. This is an eternity in terms of production values

Comparatively the TV production crews of TNG (and DS9, VOY, ENT) were consistantly working to shoot episodes that had the high quality that the fans of TOS films had become used to. Hence, looking at later seasons of TNG as well as the subsequent shows, the visuals often looked extremely polished. Hence, films like Insurrection, which were pretty good stories, became denigrated because they seemed "like really long episodes."

That aside, I would agree that the TNG films did have some unique flaws. Most seemed to stem from the fact that TNG was never an action show, per se, but rather more of a character driven show in which the characters solve some puzzle to complete their missions. Of course, in order to make the films "popular" this "puzzle like" quality was lost in favor of busting out the phasers at every turn.

 

[GalaxyX]

Some good comments in here.

Personally (for Generations) what I think they needed to do was come up with an epic story that spanned the crews of both ships (using Time Travel, or Q, or something better than "The Nexus") instead of the old tired "madman" story. The reason Generations felt so dead is because nothing really is in jeopardy from our point of view. It's just some crazy guy who wants to destroy a planet we've never heard of so he can go to his version of heaven. Not to mention the plot holes are the size of black holes (why couldn't he just fly a shuttle in? It worked for Guinan and for Kirk). Killing Kirk and destroying the Enterprise D was just the 2 final nails in the coffin for Generations.

First Contact could have easily been the story that requires both Kirk and Picard to work together to protect the first Contact. If they could have gotten Nemoy in on it, think of the Spock moments as well.

TNG could have made some excellent movies, the problem is that they used worn out writers to write them instead of looking for high concept sci-fi stories to base their movies on.

 

[WillsBabe]

I'm such a fangirl sometimes. I spent ages trying to work out which ship was destroyed by GEN before I realised what you meant.

Well, by and large I don't really care for many of the Trek films, TOS or TNG. For me the frustration of the TNG films is the focus on Picard and Data. I've read hints of what the scripts could have been like, if they hadn't been shoehorning Picard and Data into the limelight constantly, and I feel a little frustrated.

 

[CaptainStoner]

After 3 seasons of TOS, everyone knew who James T Kirk, Spock etc were, but who really knew who Picard, especially Riker, or any of the others were after all SEVEN seasons of TNG?

That's got to be the silliest thing I've read in a while. Have you seen TNG?

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Obligatory Creepy Villain: check all

Malcom McDowell's snide Soran
Slimey Borg Queen
Had-Bad-Face Lift Rude Foe
Shinzon

Actually Dr. Soran was probably the most interesting of the lot.

Data going haywire or bad: Check every movie...if you count B4 as Data...and why not?

Plot involving "paradise": Generations, Insurrection...arguably future utopian Earth...so might as well check all!

Riker going on some lackluster sidetrip while Picard gets the glory: Oh, yeah, check 'em all.