Three Simple Explanations Why TNG Films Sucked
Unimagintive and repetitive writing. Cheap and recycled sets. Tired and aging actors.
shareMy main problem with them is that they didn't really hit far enough above their belt to become 'movies' as opposed to simply being longer, moodier episodes. I think this problem stems largely from the fact that they were concurrent with 90's Trek, and were therefore held back by conformity to a certain TV standard instead of aiming higher.
Compare it with the TOS movies where, being made more than a decade after the series itself, there's this clear evolution that makes them distinct and special. Even a stinker like Star Trek V still had the gravitas of a movie production and not just an overlong episode.
The only TNG movie that really tries to set itself apart and become a movie rather than a TV show, imho, is First Contact.
I agree with both earlier posts. First Contact was the only TNG movie that didn't seem to be an extended episode. Nemesis came close but didn't get there.
I serve a risen Saviour! John 3:16
Agreed. Generations felts like a TV movie with slightly better production values, though in an odd way that worked as it also felt like a bridge from the show TO the movies. And this was fulfilled with First Contact...then went backwards to TV movie status with Insurrection and Nemesis.
shareMy main problem with them is that they didn't really hit far enough above their belt to become 'movies' as opposed to simply being longer, moodier episodes. I think this problem stems largely from the fact that they were concurrent with 90's Trek, and were therefore held back by conformity to a certain TV standard instead of aiming higher.
That's exactly how I feel, since Netflix has the movies on now, I figured I'd rewatch them. TOS movies are clearly movies, with movie production values and movie crews. Unfortunately the TNG movies were made by the same people who worked on the show, in essence what we got were direct to video episodes of TNG with occasionally upgraded VFX. share
What do you think they could have done differently to make them more "cinematic"?
Keep in mind these weren't $100+ million budgets.....considering the magnitude of the films, they were budgeted fairly modestly: ranging from around $35 million in 'Generations' to $60 million in 'Nemesis'. By comparison, JJ Abram's 'Star Trek released 7 years after Nemesis had a budget of $150 million.
Perhaps expectations are too much? The effects and production values of TNG films still FAR exceed the TV show, so I still don't agree with people who say it's just an extended TV episode.
From a story standpoint, could they have gone bolder? I don't know. They seemed like they might have been in a position where nobody knew if these films were going to be a success, each film was a one-off story, instead of an epic trilogy or something with one story.
When I think where could they have gone with the personal lives of the characters to really make the movies matter - can you have Picard get married or something? Eh I don't think so, would seem contrived. I don't really have an answer, but I did enjoy the films.
The jump in quality from TOS Star Trek show to the movies should be obvious - skimpy budget in the late 60s and I think studios saw it as campy, kid stuff. So the production was kind of cheesy. Then you had a sci-fi revolution in Hollywood within the next decade with films like '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'Star Wars', 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', and 'Alien'. I think the Star Trek movies were only made because of those films. The movies were multi-million dollar productions and were taken more serious by the studios and overall just a more sophisticated production. Of course the results were a huge jump in production quality.
Agreed. Generations felts like a TV movie with slightly better production values, though in an odd way that worked as it also felt like a bridge from the show TO the movies. And this was fulfilled with First Contact...then went backwards to TV movie status with Insurrection and Nemesis.
that's an interesting way of looking at GEN - like a bridge from the TNG tv series to the movies. i.e we start off with a sort of continuation of the movies (with the same 3 TOS characters who destroyed the Enterprise in III - an unintentional clue to the Ent Ds fate later in the movie?) before we go into like a traditional TNG episode with an A/B storyline and gradually the episode gets bigger and bigger and more Trek movie like (Klingon BOP, Stellar Cartography, the Ent destruction) until it merges/bridges with the movie series (Kirk and Picard) so by the end the tv show has been trashed (the Ent D) and fully 'moviefied' with Kirk passing the torch to Picard for TNG to be the torchbearers of the movies series (until Spock passes the torch from TNG era back to TOS..kind of)
a bridge from the movies to TNG had been done in VI (how peace with the klingons emerged, Worf, Kirks final log entry, plus unintentionally with having to reuse TNGs sets) & had nimoy passing the torch in Unification. so in a way the movie series had become 'TNGified' - I guess they felt the need to do the same for TNG
From a story standpoint, could they have gone bolder? I don't know. They seemed like they might have been in a position where nobody knew if these films were going to be a success, each film was a one-off story, instead of an epic trilogy or something with one story.
maybe they could've gone with something of a trilogy after FC (esp after FC was so successful) so Insurrection would've led on from FC like Search For Spock. e.g. The Ent E gets back to the 24th century but they end up in the mirror universe so they have to deal with that then they resolve it and get back to their own time and have to deal with something else that was connected to FC share
[deleted]
ST: Generations was scored by Dennis McCarthy.
shareWhat they could or should have done to become more cinematic? Well, first of all maybe hire really competent writers and directors. Worst example: A guy who is basically an editor directed NEMESIS! ...and that's what we got. Watched it last night and we were so bored and disappointed - AGAIN!
RedLetterMedia (just google that name if it does not ring any bell)- made long and precise reviews on YouTube about all the problems the TNG movies had.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZjkHUrEuHc&index=12&list= PLAFA438E8BECFBF0D
And no! - it's not about the budget or the looks - it's about a good story, compelling characters. Heck, they should also NEVER EVER have destroyed the ENTERPRISE D !!!
It was the most beautiful Enterprise ever - the TNG-MOVIE-ENTERPRISE looks like a soulless piece of overblown technology - and of course it's CGI.
Last night I checked some TNG-BluRay videos on YouTube - and OH - MY - GOD - WOW!!! Does everything look amazing and beautiful. Thinking about the fact that the ENTERPRISE D was "just" a studio-model (and not some soulless, cheapo looking CGI abomination) - it totally stands the test of time (which the 1960s Enterprise does not... how could it)
So, yeah,that's the thing: GOOD SCRIPTWRITING makes a movie good - not some "dark" and "gritty" action-cliché, CGI cr@p, where everyone is acting out of character (Picard as John McClane etc)
And I will never ever understand how they could treat the TNG movies like some mediocre tv-production and hire some, well... not so competent people, to direct.
Heck, if I would be a producer about to spend 30 or 50 Million Dollars on a movie, the FIRST thing would be hiring a competent Team - and maybe even some really famous directors if possible. But for some strange reason, STAR TREK always had this concept of: "Everyone can direct, just ask..." - well, that's nice for some 45 minute Episode of the week - but not for a fricking MOVIE!
I LOVE the TNG series. I FRICKING LOVE IT. - and another thing: The very last two-parter ever - "All Good Things" is a BILLION GAZILLION TIMES better than all the TNG-Movives together.
People easily get distracted by the fact that something is a "movie" on the "big screen" - when in the end the script where everything is based on was written by some person with zero inspiration or interest or whatever - and then the direction was done by a person that did OTHER THINGS his or her whole life.
AGAIN: WHY BY ALL THE PROPHETS HIRE AN EDITOR TO DIRECT A MOVIE???????????
So, as much as I love TNG (and DS9 and VOYAGER) - I have to say: These movies put the last nail in the coffin... and I am not really a huge fan of these new J.J. Abrams movies... but at least he does the action and the visuals and the directing right... altough the spirit of TREK is also not really there anymore... which was also not there in the TNG movies - and here's why:
Just because there's the same actors (just older) from the beloved tv-series - and an (ugly-cgi) starship called ENTERPRISE does not make it a TNG movie!
Oh, and what were the good things of NEMESIS: Well, the rare,quiet TNG-Moments of course: Actors talking to each other - not beating the cr@p out of each other with plastic-phaser rifles and stuff!
Oh, and when TWO out of FOUR TNG movies have a boring, weird looking villain that uses a super-huge-starship that transforms into a weapon (or space-cleaning-lady) then one should ask: Should we write another script before we make this and blow 50 Million into outer space???
ChrEberle
Thanks for your post!
I almost cried after watching Nemesis (and knowing Enterprise season 1 was rather weak)
Not cried like the end of DS9 good, but cried Star Trek is dead bad
Nail in the coffin is right! Shot in both feet
Storyline and ideas just awful
John Logan was nominated for Academy Awards before and after this mess, but this uninspired screenplay based on bad judgement went NOWHERE
Can we time travel to erase this?
First Contact 9/10 rating cost $45,000,000 and grossed $92,000,000 in the US (146K world)
vs this 3/10 cost $60,000,000 and couldn't gross $44,000,000 in the US (break even world)
who will write new series for 2017???????????????
if it's bad writers, I volunteer for the job
By the way Stuat Baird is an editor (nominated for Oscars twice too but only before) but directed 2 movies in the 1990s which I happen to both see. Executive Decision was below par (4/10) but U.S. Marshals was better (6/10)
Nemesis ended his directing career, but he is now editing the Bond movies etc.
However, again the writing is at fault here