• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Why didn't the Son'a just colonize the opposite side of the planet from the Ba'ku? They could've saved themselves a lot of effort.
.

Gee, I never thought about that. You're right! Just goes to show that sometimes they would throw logic overboard if it helped to construct a crisis for the crew to face. Generations did the same (Picard going back to five minutes before doom on Veridian III instead of, you know, any earlier date) and Nemesis, too, of course.

Aside from that, all my theories for the failure of the TNG franchise have already been eloquently covered here. I'd like to add that the idea seemed to be, starting with First Contact, to not make these TNG films, but what Rick Berman thought of as Star Trek films. They sacrificed the ensemble they had in favor of a TOS-like setup which didn't work for TNG: Picard and Data never had the rapport that Kirk and Spock had.

But scope is also important. The TNG films felt small. Especially the one whose story was the biggest (FC with its apocalyptic alien invasions and the time travel to save the birth of Star Trek itself) felt like a bottle show. Few locations, and unimpressive location shoots, and of course a script that missed out on an adequate introduction to this supposedly massive threat. We get a Captain's log telling us the Borg are dangerous, but we aren't shown. You don't do it like that in the movies. That was a general problem for many of these films.
 
Audiences probably would have rebelled if, rather than watching the characters that we're all familiar with, we were instead given a story that focused on alternate versions of those characters from an alternate timeline.....an alternate timeline that ceases to exist at the end of the movie.
Funny... isn't that what we're about to get in the new film, except that if it does well the timeline won't cease to exist at the end? I see hardly anyone claiming that audiences are going to rebel against that.
 
The TNG movies tried to be too actiony which was never TNG's greatest strength. They needed a movie with a plot more like The Motion Picture, a real science fiction epic that only the combined minds of Picard, Data, etc. could overcome.
 
The TNG movies tried to be too actiony which was never TNG's greatest strength. They needed a movie with a plot more like The Motion Picture, a real science fiction epic that only the combined minds of Picard, Data, etc. could overcome.
All Good Things?
 
I liked the next gen movies.
Generations wasn't perfect by any means but I enjoyed it.
First Contact is my favorite of all 10 films, I thought it was perfect.
Insurrection was fun, I would agree that it is more like an episode than a movie but I still enjoed it.
Nemesis was the only film I didn't like very much. It had it's moments but it was dissapointing for me.
Overall I have fond memories of the films.
 
But scope is also important. The TNG films felt small. Especially the one whose story was the biggest (FC with its apocalyptic alien invasions and the time travel to save the birth of Star Trek itself) felt like a bottle show. Few locations, and unimpressive location shoots, and of course a script that missed out on an adequate introduction to this supposedly massive threat. We get a Captain's log telling us the Borg are dangerous, but we aren't shown. You don't do it like that in the movies. That was a general problem for many of these films.
Excellent point... I hadn't really thought of that before. Kind of like an episode just being shown as-is on the big screen.

What was really lacking in TNG movies is enough collaboration between people who know the Star Trek material. The worst of it had to be Nemesis... I simply can't understand how it was allowed to be made that way. The poor editors... they must've looked at the film they had to work with and just scratched their heads in amazement. There's only so much you can do with poor directing and producing. But at least start with a well developed story. So much of Nemesis felt like disjointed patchwork.
 
But scope is also important. The TNG films felt small. Especially the one whose story was the biggest (FC with its apocalyptic alien invasions and the time travel to save the birth of Star Trek itself) felt like a bottle show. Few locations, and unimpressive location shoots, and of course a script that missed out on an adequate introduction to this supposedly massive threat. We get a Captain's log telling us the Borg are dangerous, but we aren't shown. You don't do it like that in the movies. That was a general problem for many of these films.[/QUOTE]


Got to disagree with this completely. We see the Borg kicking ASS and taking over the ship deck by deck. We get lots of cool creepy Borg shots in the film, see lots of people get assimilated. You really get the sense that they can't be stopped and that the ship is lost. I can't understand how you could call this a bottle show either, everything about this movie is big and epic. The story, the visuals and the things that are done with the characters. I always thought the movie looked very large and epic. The huge pan back shot that opens the movie is a perfect set-up for the large scale of the film. The locations are great too, they shot in a real missle silo which looks great, the village location is large and looks good as well. The holodeck sequence was also a location shoot. Great visual effects in this film. I really thought this was a perfect movie and it is still my favorite of the series.
 
Got to disagree with this completely. We see the Borg kicking ASS and taking over the ship deck by deck. We get lots of cool creepy Borg shots in the film, see lots of people get assimilated. You really get the sense that they can't be stopped and that the ship is lost. I can't understand how you could call this a bottle show either, everything about this movie is big and epic. The story, the visuals and the things that are done with the characters. I always thought the movie looked very large and epic. The huge pan back shot that opens the movie is a perfect set-up for the large scale of the film. The locations are great too, they shot in a real missle silo which looks great, the village location is large and looks good as well. The holodeck sequence was also a location shoot. Great visual effects in this film. I really thought this was a perfect movie and it is still my favorite of the series.

I will of course defer to your personal opinion, but I have to disagree with the assertion that this would not qualify for an overwrought bottle show. There were basically two locations for the entire movie: the Enterprise and 21st century Earth. While the movie budget did allow a greater degree of exploration of both of these settings (and I won't dispute that it's an enjoyable movie) it did lack a sense of scope.

Technically 'Generations' was less of a bottle show.
 
For me the worst parts of the TNG movies was the humor. Something about all of the humor they tried to inject into the 3 TNG films just seems so exaggerated. It is to the point that people seem glaringly out of character because of it.

Obviously all of these characters have a sense of humor and we see them joking around through the series when it made sense, but in the movies it is all just so over the top and obviously shoehorned in.

I especially cringe every time Spiner or Dorn says or does something wildly out of character in these films.

Compare this to the TOS movies where most of the jokes are actually funny and you can actually see these people saying things like that..for the most part anyway.

Aside from the humor though, all of the TNG characters just feel off to me. I see glimpses of them sometimes, but they mostly seem like bad clones of the characters I came to love from the show. It is almost like the TNG films take place in an alternate universe or something.
 
Got to disagree with this completely. We see the Borg kicking ASS and taking over the ship deck by deck. We get lots of cool creepy Borg shots in the film, see lots of people get assimilated. You really get the sense that they can't be stopped and that the ship is lost. I can't understand how you could call this a bottle show either, everything about this movie is big and epic.
And I gotta disagree with you there. The film isn't epic in scope. The Enterprise sets aren't particularly big. The film feels small and t he number of shipboard locations is tiny. So we do not see them taking the ship deck by deck, we see them grab a few people in repetitive corridors. There's no real sense of movement. As usual is Star Trek, we're TOLD, not shown. This is more a factor of imagination in shooting than budget. They just didn't have an idea of how to make the action feel big.
 
Got to disagree with this completely. We see the Borg kicking ASS and taking over the ship deck by deck. We get lots of cool creepy Borg shots in the film, see lots of people get assimilated. You really get the sense that they can't be stopped and that the ship is lost. I can't understand how you could call this a bottle show either, everything about this movie is big and epic.
And I gotta disagree with you there. The film isn't epic in scope. The Enterprise sets aren't particularly big. The film feels small and t he number of shipboard locations is tiny. So we do not see them taking the ship deck by deck, we see them grab a few people in repetitive corridors. There's no real sense of movement. As usual is Star Trek, we're TOLD, not shown. This is more a factor of imagination in shooting than budget. They just didn't have an idea of how to make the action feel big.

Indeed. With FC, I get a similar vibe as from TSFS, Nimoy's first Trek directing job. While I like that film as whole (it's underrated being sandwiched between what are two of the series' most popular), it could've also had more zing, but Nimoy was learning and delivered a truly good job with TVH. Same for Frakes. INS was more dynamic and better-paced than FC which had "television" written all over it.

On TV, implying action is needed for budget reasons alone. In a truly big and epic film, you don't need to imply, just show it! And my, how some epic films have done that: Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Indiana Jones. Star Trek does belong in the same category as far as the subject matter is concerned, but somehow the films, especially the TNG ones, never managed to translate that to the screen.
 
Audiences probably would have rebelled if, rather than watching the characters that we're all familiar with, we were instead given a story that focused on alternate versions of those characters from an alternate timeline.....an alternate timeline that ceases to exist at the end of the movie.
Funny... isn't that what we're about to get in the new film, except that if it does well the timeline won't cease to exist at the end? I see hardly anyone claiming that audiences are going to rebel against that.

I haven't read too much in the way of spoilers on Trek XI. I understand that there's some kind of messing with the timeline, but the timeline then remains altered at the end, and the altered versions of the characters are the ones who will then carry on the franchise for subsequent movies.

I see "Yesterday's Enterprise" as being completely different. In that case, our heroes are (apparently) instantaneously replaced by alternate timeline versions of themselves, and those alternate versions then have to "fix" the timeline and, at the end, everything goes back to normal, and our heroes are oblivious to the fact that anything happened. Nothing that happens in the episode has any impact on our heroes, it doesn't affect their lives in any way from that point onwards (except for the emergence of Sela later on, but that's a rather secondary effect), and the versions of the characters that we watched during the whole episode never exist again.

I don't think *that* would have gone over well in movie form. It was great for a single episode, but I don't think a "what if" story of that type would have worked well as a TNG movie. Now maybe Trek XI is just like that, and people will love it. I don't know. But don't tell me if Trek XI actually does play out like that, because I don't want to be spoiled any more than I already am. :p
 
All of this is, of course, patently absurd. Does anyone really think that stories like 'The Best of Both Worlds' and 'Yesterday's Enterprise' would not have made excellent films?

"The Best of Both Worlds" would have, but "Yesterday's Enterprise" wouldn't. Audiences probably would have rebelled if, rather than watching the characters that we're all familiar with, we were instead given a story that focused on alternate versions of those characters from an alternate timeline.....an alternate timeline that ceases to exist at the end of the movie. It was great for a 1 hour episode, but I don't think it would work for a movie.

A lot of other great TNG episodes have similar problems. "Cause and Effect", "Tapestry", and "Parallels" all have similar "there's some kind of timeloop or messing around with the timeline that all gets reset at the end of the episode" problems. Which isn't really a problem for a one hour episode, but it wouldn't work in a movie. "The Inner Light" and "Frame of Mind" both take place in one character's mind. "The Measure of a Man" and "The Offspring" are too low key to be made into movies.

Really, there aren't *that* many TNG episodes that I think would have made great movies. I think it's possible that the show's writers were simply good at writing 1 hour TV episodes, but not so good at writing movies.

All Good Things, while I would hesitate to remove it from the series as it was the perfect finale, would have made an equally excellent movie.

For what it's worth, although this would necessitate some obvious changes to the plot, Q would have been a superior vector than the Nexus for getting Kirk into the action, too.
 
But scope is also important. The TNG films felt small. Especially the one whose story was the biggest (FC with its apocalyptic alien invasions and the time travel to save the birth of Star Trek itself) felt like a bottle show. Few locations, and unimpressive location shoots, and of course a script that missed out on an adequate introduction to this supposedly massive threat. We get a Captain's log telling us the Borg are dangerous, but we aren't shown. You don't do it like that in the movies. That was a general problem for many of these films.

Couldn't agree more.

Borg Cube? Toast inside about a hundred twenty seconds.

Earth assimilated by the Borg? Let's hear Data tell us instead of being shown.

Then about a an hour of, to totally rip off SFDebris, "They're turning into zombies... dark corridors!"
 
ALL the Trek movies are mediocre when compared to genuinely classic bits of film-making.

Compared to each other, well your mileage may vary. GEN and INS get a lot of bashing as merely long episodes of the TV series, and while Best Of Both Worlds would make a good movie, Time's Arrow and Gambit probably would not. In the cinema both are mediocre but sat at home they become more-expensive TV, and they are fine at that.

I'd love a Trek movie to be a genuinely great film one day, as in critically acclaimed and so on, but I honestly don't give a toss if it does not happen.

All your average Trek movie can hope to do is make money, then they will make another one. Only TMP has really aspired to be "great" and fell short because of a tepid story and lack of pace. TWOK is often claimed as the best, and I love it, but it will make very few critics top 100 list.
 
Got to disagree with this completely. We see the Borg kicking ASS and taking over the ship deck by deck. We get lots of cool creepy Borg shots in the film, see lots of people get assimilated. You really get the sense that they can't be stopped and that the ship is lost. I can't understand how you could call this a bottle show either, everything about this movie is big and epic.
And I gotta disagree with you there. The film isn't epic in scope. The Enterprise sets aren't particularly big. The film feels small and t he number of shipboard locations is tiny. So we do not see them taking the ship deck by deck, we see them grab a few people in repetitive corridors. There's no real sense of movement. As usual is Star Trek, we're TOLD, not shown. This is more a factor of imagination in shooting than budget. They just didn't have an idea of how to make the action feel big.

Agreed. I always thought setting most of the action on the ship was hokey. And 21st century earth consisted of a few sheds and some grass. I think they basically used the same location as with the episode where Lore sets up an army of borg drones.

The only film that comes close to film is Generations. X files also seemed to suffer from the extended episode syndrome.

As for a lost Hollywood golden era I would tend to agree. We get shoddy re-makes now instead of you know original ideas. The artistic value of creativity has been shot down because execs think they know better with their spreadsheets. Well you can't quantify art. Some of the most seemingly crazy ideas on paper turned out to be blockbusters! Its the platonic quality of art, not whether audiences favour x y or z, which makes a film a classic/blockbuster. You know it when you see it. Some films/music/books just are good, even if you don't like them because they hit upon a sequence which approaches perfection.

This is why the TNG movies sucked. They were assembled based on assumptions about the audience and they failed precisely for this reason.
 
It sometimes seems to me as though the ideas for almost all the movies were the result of focus groups and charts and surveys rather than someone or several someones being creative. Except maybe TMP...which was a very flawed movie but which did at least start with a genuinely creative premise, I think.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top