Wost TNG film?

[bobmadox]

I’m sorry but insurrection was the worst. At least nemesis attempted to get away from the TNG formula…well to an extent anyway. They stopped Jonathan (very bad director) frakes, from directing anymore, which can only be a good thing! Insurrection is still an appalling film though

Everyone forgets star trek isn’t a club…if films are made they should appeal to everyone. Even if, god forbid, know one has ever heard of star trek…the next generation films were an extension of the series and nothing more. Everything that became tired and formulaic in the show, and the subsequent spin offs where just made more apparent in the films.

 

[TrekNut87]

Nemisis by faaaaaaaaaaaaaar! God, I struggled to sit through that one. It didn't do TNG justice at all, just felt like another recycled storyline from the series.

 

[Stardate]

Insurrection is the worst followed by Nemesis.

 

[Red Ranger]

Yep, a picture is worth a thousand words! Just one reason among many I voted with the majority, although it was a toss-up between NEM and INS. -- RR

 

[CorporalClegg]

I’m sorry but insurrection was the worst. At least nemesis attempted to get away from the TNG formula…well to an extent anyway. They stopped Jonathan (very bad director) frakes, .

I disagree whole lots with this.

After Dawson, I'd say Frakes is far and away the best Trek actor turned director. LaVar and RDM are okay, but they are pretty much paint-by-numbers. And Lenny and Shat were just awful.

The rest of the actors were of the "Just let them direct so they'll shut up," variety. Not really much to see there; though I suppose Brooks did an okay job with "Far Beyond the Stars."

Frakes at least presented a bit of cinematic aptitude.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

I’m sorry but insurrection was the worst. At least nemesis attempted to get away from the TNG formula…well to an extent anyway. They stopped Jonathan (very bad director) frakes, .

I disagree whole lots with this.

After Dawson, I'd say Frakes is far and away the best Trek actor turned director. LaVar and RDM are okay, but they are pretty much paint-by-numbers. And Lenny and Shat were just awful.

The rest of the actors were of the "Just let them direct so they'll shut up," variety. Not really much to see there; though I suppose Brooks did an okay job with "Far Beyond the Stars."

Frakes at least presented a bit of cinematic aptitude.

Roxann Dawson as a director sucked MAJOR bollocks.

And Leonard Nimoy was awful? Surely not Frakes-type, but awful? No way, buddy. The Voyage Home?

That said, Frakes and Avery Brooks were the best actor-turned-directors. Brooks is really quite underrated - his "Rejoined", "Far Beyond the stars" and "Dogs of War" are really, quite excellent.

And Frakes did FC - the franchise's most perfect film since TWOK.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Roxann Dawson as a director sucked MAJOR bollocks.

Uh Huh. And the reason she the most successful one outside Star Trek is because she sucked balls.

It's only a matter of time until she starts doing feature films. That is, unless she doesn't want to. (She has a nice comfy job now.)

The Voyage Home?

Yes. We all know what a cinematic masterpiece that was.

That said, Frakes and Avery Brooks were the best actor-turned-directors. Brooks is really quite underrated - his "Rejoined", "Far Beyond the stars" and "Dogs of War" are really, quite excellent.

I gave him credit for "Far Beyond the Stars." He couldn't motivate Farrell to anything resembling a decent performance in "Rejoined"; and that is, after, part of his job. And "Dogs of War" was all around pretty meh. There was too much going on and he couldn't focus it together very well.

And Frakes did FC - the franchise's most perfect film since TWOK.

That, of course, is you opinion. I, on the other hand, see both films as the epitome of everything that is wrong with the Star Trek movie franchise.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

Uh Huh. And the reason she the most successful one outside Star Trek is because she sucked balls.

It's only a matter of time until she starts doing feature films. That is, unless she doesn't want to. (She has a nice comfy job now.)

God forbid, the world to be deprived of her cinematic skill! Oh yay!!

Yes. We all know what a cinematic masterpiece that was.

Yes, because "Doctor's Orders" and "Awakenings" are the true masterpieces..

That, of course, is you opinion. I, on the other hand, see both films as the epitome of everything that is wrong with the Star Trek movie franchise.

Whats wrong with those two films?

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

I gave him credit for "Far Beyond the Stars." He couldn't motivate Farrell to anything resembling a decent performance in "Rejoined"; and that is, after, part of his job. And "Dogs of War" was all around pretty meh. There was too much going on and he couldn't focus it together very well.

Farrell did a fine job in "Rejoined" - in fact, I'll say its her best acting in DS9. And "Dogs of War" was just about a great episode, especially considering its exceedingly hard job to bring closure to certain stories.

 

[Ward Fowler]

It simply amazes me that Nemesis is getting a lower grade than Insurrection, the hands down worst movie in the franchise. Then again, alot of people would rate Insurrection above The Motion Picture or The Final Frontier. What a world.

 

[CorporalClegg]

^
To be fair, Insurrection is at least critically considered a much better film and it actually somewhat resembles the show it represents.

Nemesis was just one giant suck fest. Shitty plot, shitty dialog, shitty acting... it's just all really bad. And, as I said, represented as such in pretty much any review.

 

[Ward Fowler]

^
To be fair, Insurrection is at least critically considered a much better film and it actually somewhat resembles the show it represents.

Nemesis was just one giant suck fest. Shitty plot, shitty dialog, shitty acting... it's just all really bad. And, as I said, represented as such in pretty much any review.

My wife and I went to see both INS and NEM on their opening nights. I thought that INS was so bad that I was actually embarrassed to be in the audience. The humor was god-awful and the plot completely forgettable. My wife felt the same. With NEM we both came out of the movie feeling that we had seen a decent Star Trek movie. Not great but not bad. To each his own, I guess.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

I agree. I rate NEM over INS as well. The central nature vs. nurture question in NEM is one I find interesting. The central idea of INS appears to be: do the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few? I'm not sure that "no" is the right answer.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

Nemesis was bad, but Inssurection takes the cake.

A planet of aliens who look identical to humans, threatend by another race of aliens who aso look identical to humans (all be it humans with botched plastic surgery) the latter being helped by the suppsidly high moralistic UFP to abduct and move the former....so the latter can get access to it's fountain of youth.....

seriously!.....did nobody stop when they drafted this script and realize it was about the standerd of some of the worst TNG bottle shows?

 

[Orac Zen]

The thing that puts Nemesis a shade below Insurrection for mine is "killing off" Data in so ridiculous a fashion, while simultaneously removing any minuscule semblance of "meaning" said death had with the whole B-4 stupidity. Otherwise I agree with that assessment, PhoenixIreland.

 

[Natural]

Insurrection has grown on me a little bit. But either way Nemesis is far and away the worst TNG movie and the worse Trek movie.

 

[jimbtnp2]

If I did a "Best TNG Film" thread, it would most likely end with FC as the winner. So, I instead did a more, shall we say, challenging thread.

So, which TNG film is the worst?

From Best to Worst

Nemesis
FC
Generations
Insurrection

 

[jimbtnp2]

^
To be fair, Insurrection is at least critically considered a much better film and it actually somewhat resembles the show it represents.

Nemesis was just one giant suck fest. Shitty plot, shitty dialog, shitty acting... it's just all really bad. And, as I said, represented as such in pretty much any review.

My wife and I went to see both INS and NEM on their opening nights. I thought that INS was so bad that I was actually embarrassed to be in the audience. The humor was god-awful and the plot completely forgettable. My wife felt the same. With NEM we both came out of the movie feeling that we had seen a decent Star Trek movie. Not great but not bad. To each his own, I guess.

I agree with your assessment

 

[cooleddie74]

NEMESIS.

No contest.


Awesome effects and opticals. Undercooked plot with little spice.

 

[SiorX]

I agree. I rate NEM over INS as well. The central nature vs. nurture question in NEM is one I find interesting. The central idea of INS appears to be: do the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few? I'm not sure that "no" is the right answer.

I have that problem too. INS doesn't even treat the question as one which needs to be addressed, however. It just assumes the audience will fall in with the assumption that "no" is the obvious correct moral answer.

I also can't think of any other race in TNG - and they had a few corkers - who were as hatefully selfish as the Ba'ku.

The fact that the central conflict doesn't revolve around whether or not the Federation should seek to use this resource, but instead around the old trope of it being wrong to try to uproot a pre-existant civilisation makes the whole thing worse. (Besides, they already did that story in Journey's End with a far more sympathetic colony, and INS does it no better, and goes no deeper.)

It ends up that the argument is not that the Federation would be wrong to use the "fountain of youth" because it is too potentially divisive a power for one group in the galaxy to yield. Instead, it's because they should leave it in the hands of 2,000 settlers who will never do a thing with the planet's power to aid or benefit anybody outside their own community.