StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2009-04-30 12:21pm**

Somewhere along the way, in the TNG era, they started getting 'reset-buttonitis' and they never were able to get away from it. Everything seemed so... static.

Posted: **2009-04-30 01:52pm**

LordOskuro wrote:What the fuck is the problem with aging? Old people can be interesting too. In fact, I always felt that the original cast became more interesting in the movies as they had a lifetime of experience with wich to ponder their actions (bad writting aside), and Patrick Stewart's aged look (even from the start) made him more believable as the Captain in my mind.

The original cast didn't get damaged by aging because they had very little actual character growth in their three seasons, so that plus being older made them good writer's fodder for a nuanced, aging crew, and they explored a lot of themes regarding Kirk's unwillingness to go quietly into that good deskjob. That's a good way to handle aging, and I think it was a model they should have continued to emulate.

Just ignoring it and basically thrusting the entire crew back into the mixer, despite relative frumpiness, isn't an elegent way to do it. They should have taken a similar tone, with Picard and crew acting and feeling older, but there was barely any gap between the last TNG episodes and the movie production, so they weren't forced to address the issue, and just never did. Picard, as an old man from the beginning, had a lot of time the primary character to reflect on aging--there's lots of episodes where he's either in the future, or jumping through time, or living an alien life, or reflecting on his youth... hell, even the movies touch on that at times. But the rest of them weren't really action hero material.

That's the issue with aging, not that they're too old to rock and roll, but that the movies always take this more "Badass Space Warrior" motif into them, and the crew never was fitting for that even at the origin, let alone at the end.

Otherwise, if you wanted to make a badass fight-and-explodey movie, you should have gone with the more violent DS9 cast instead of attempting to revive the TNG movies continually with things like Insurrection.

Posted: **2009-04-30 02:09pm**

As a lifelong fan of the original Gerry Anderson Thunderbirds I'm sorry to say that the comparatively recent live action Thunderbirds movie was a complete abomination and another demonstration that Sir Ben Kingsley can turn up in any old shit (other examples being Freddie as FR07 and A Sound of Thunder), although I don't blame Jonathan Frakes but instead of the dull corporate suits worse than Rick Berman trying to make something like Agent Cody Banks. Jonathan Frakes is a competent and workmanlike director with First Contact being one of his better examples (he also directed a fair few TNG/DS9/VOY episodes).

The Undiscovered Country was great but felt like a above average two parter of DS9 and some of TOS cast were getting overtly geriatric instead of just middle aged, I enjoyed The Motion Picture in the same way I enjoyed David Lynch's Dune (very weird and slow paced, but relatively likable and unique) and The Voyage Home was enjoyable fun in the similar vein to DS9's "Little Green Men" and Voyager's "Future's End". I found The Final Frontier completely risible and shows that at least Insurrection and Nemesis had competent production values and proper effects...

Posted: **2009-04-30 05:29pm**

Covenant wrote:That's the issue with aging, not that they're too old to rock and roll, but that the movies always take this more "Badass Space Warrior" motif into them, and the crew never was fitting for that even at the origin, let alone at the end.

Otherwise, if you wanted to make a badass fight-and-explodey movie, you should have gone with the more violent DS9 cast instead of attempting to revive the TNG movies continually with things like Insurrection.

I'm inclined to think that's another part of the problem. Generations feels like a TNG production, but the movies afterward don't feel like TNG at all - they're the Picard & Data (& Phaser Rifle) Show.

Big Orange wrote:The Undiscovered Country was great but felt like a above average two parter of DS9 and some of TOS cast were getting overtly geriatric instead of just middle aged

That's... interesting, since TUC came out a few years before DS9 premiered.

I don't think the TOS cast being old really hurt that movie. I thought it pretty well established that they were all about to retire anyway before this one last mission came up.

Big Orange wrote:I found The Final Frontier completely risible and shows that at least Insurrection and Nemesis had competent production values and proper effects...

TFF was probably hurt most in this respect by its inability to hire ILM (ILM was, if I remember right, totally booked solid at that time - that was a big year for blockbuster movies), and then got burned when they picked an effects house that turned out to have no experience or skill in big special effects whatsoever.

TFF also suffered from the 1988 writers' strike, from studio interference (they pushed hard for another light-hearted movie), and from William Shatner's ambitions being bigger than his talent. At the very least, TFF was trying to do something, and it at least has some nice character moments.

Posted: **2009-05-02 06:18pm**

Uraniun235 wrote: That's... interesting, since TUC came out a few years before DS9 premiered.

I know that, but The Undiscovered Country can be seen as a prototype for the DS9 formula, with the politicking and the balance of power between the different interstella superstates.

I don't think the TOS cast being old really hurt that movie. I thought it pretty well established that they were all about to retire anyway before this one last mission came up.

It seemed contrived they would still be serving together after all these years, when only Mr. Zula was the captain of his own ship.

Posted: **2009-05-02 07:28pm**

That's a pretty vague association with DS9. By that standard we could call the shapeshifter infiltration plots to be prototypical of the Cylon infiltrators from BSG.

As for being contrived - the same could be said about all of the TOS movies.

Posted: **2009-05-02 07:44pm**

Uraniun235 wrote:By that standard we could call the shapeshifter infiltration plots to be prototypical of the Cylon infiltrators from BSG.

Well, to play devil's advocate, both series had RDM...

Posted: **2009-05-05 07:42am**

I still think DS9 derives alot from The Undiscovered Country, anyway, especially where the Klingons and political intrigue are concerned.

One of the biggest strikes against TNG was that TNG was a long running show that was already wrapped up as well as it could be with "All Good Things" written by Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore (IMHO, the only genuinely great Trek series finale, I mean DS9's "What You Leave Behind" was decisively eclipsed by the preceding "Taking into the Wind" and "The Dogs of War", "Endgame" was a disappointing collage of stronger VOY stories like "Timeless" and "Dark Frontier", "These are the Voyages" sounded like some sick self-indulgent joke to cap off an otherwise solid final ENT season, and from the sounds of it NuBSG also ended on a damp squib).

Posted: **2009-05-05 09:57am**

One of the big problems with TNG movies (and alot of the later trek) is how f*cking sterile it was, there was no conflict as the "good guys" were always right and "righteous" while the "bad guys" were cartoonish caricatures with no beliveble motives (their motives seem to boil down to "I'm the villian, so I must be EVIIIL!!"), this with the TNG (and later) trek's habit to be really simplistic with even complex issues (like sex), makes them feel more like a sermon about morality in story format then actual stories.

Posted: **2009-05-05 11:59am**

First Contact didn't do as badly in that regard, since the Borg's MO had long-since been established, and Picard's actions were presented as being questionable, though the whole thing could have been executed better (i.e. not completely undone after just one chat with Lily). Generations, you could sort of understand why Soran would do what he did, but they needed more backstory about his previous attempt(s) to get into the Nexus - jumping straight into "destroyer of worlds" territory was just was over the top. Insurrection had a similar problem, and compounded it by making the heroes look like selfish assholes. Nemesis, well, enough has been written about the total joke that was Shinzon in the last 78 months.

Posted: **2009-05-08 06:08pm**

Coyote wrote:Somewhere along the way, in the TNG era, they started getting 'reset-buttonitis' and they never were able to get away from it. Everything seemed so... static.

I was thinking "sterile," but static works as well. It felt like nothing really changed, that anything a writer didn't like about a character just got reset at the next opportunity. In the TOS movies, actions had consequences. Kirk hated Klingons, especially after his son was killed. His actions led to the show trial. There was a sense that what had happened in the past would influence the future. That feeling didn't exist in TNG.

Posted: **2009-05-13 06:50pm**

[quote="Stofsk"]
What would the equivalent to Colonel Kilgore be? A Starfleet Admiral after the end of a battle saying something like "I love the smell of antimatter in the morning!"

A space battle with Ride of the Valkyries playing as the music would be just perfect.

Admiral Kilgore's line to a shocked Picard after an insane space battle;

"Son, vapours don't shoot back"

Posted: **2009-05-13 08:37pm**

My basic and simplistic take on the situation.

Original cast:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture- Saved Earth, villain from Earth's past

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan- Classic villain, personal vendetta, doomsday device, Spock died

Star Trek: The Search for Spock- Classic villain, Saved Spock

Star Trek: The Voyage Home- Saved Earth, time travel to Earth's past

Star Trek: The Final Frontier- Questioned God, but not really, classic villain, dealt with personal relationships

Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country- Saved the Federation, classic villain

The Next Generation cast:
Star Trek: Generations- Saved some planet, new villain, killed Kirk

Star Trek: First Contact- Classic villain, Saved Earth and the Federation, time travel to Earth's past

Star Trek: Insurrection- Villain of the week, dealt with moral issues

Star Trek: Nemesis- Villain of the week, personal vendetta

Now when you look at it like that, it is clear what the problem is. The new movies didn't put "The" in the titles.

Seriously, look at the only movie widely considered good in the new set. In that movie they saved Earth. It was a grand and epic story and in that story they defeated one of their most dangerous foes.

The other three, with the exception of Kirk's death, were basically TV episodes that they lengthened to 2 hours. They had no sense of being a grand adventure.

When you look at the original cast movies, they tend to be of a grander scale and you get a sense that the crew really accomplished something outside of just getting everything wrapped up for the next episode movie. Even the weaker movies accomplished this.

Posted: **2009-05-13 08:46pm**

Havok wrote:Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country- Saved the Federation, classic villain.

Uncovers a Conspiracy, Wolf in the fold, Devil's Island in Spaaace!

You left out a bit there.

Posted: **2009-05-14 07:05am**

Havok wrote:My basic and simplistic take on the situation.

Original cast:
Star Trek: The Final Frontier- Questioned God, but not really, classic villain, dealt with personal relationships

Sybok's a "classic villain"?

Posted: **2009-05-14 08:32am**

Classic in the sense of his role in the film, not in the sense that he was an effective villain.

Posted: **2009-05-14 10:21am**

I thought god turned out to be the villain? Or growing old? Or something else? Wasn't Sybok just a nice guy down on his luck?

Might have to watch it again.

Posted: **2009-05-14 11:16am**

I was always confused on why Lieutenant Slaavik wasn't the traitor in TUC, instead of that random and complete look-alike. That would probably have improved the movie as much as removing Chang's spiel of 'I shall now quote something every five seconds! Shakespeare Cat is Shakespeare!'

Posted: **2009-05-14 11:24am**

If I remember right, Kirstie Alley either wasn't interested or wanted too much money, Nick Meyer didn't want a third actress to play Saavik, and supposedly Robin Curtis wasn't considered for whatever reason.

Posted: **2009-05-14 12:35pm**

tim31 wrote:I thought god turned out to be the villain? Or growing old? Or something else? Wasn't Sybok just a nice guy down on his luck?

Might have to watch it again.

Sybok was a dupe. The ShaKaRe being essentially fed back to Sybok his own ego-projection of what "God" is supposed to be as wish-fulfillment, to trick him into bringing a starship to the planet.

Posted: **2009-05-14 12:48pm**

Uraniun235 wrote:If I remember right, Kirstie Alley either wasn't interested or wanted too much money, Nick Meyer didn't want a third actress to play Saavik, and supposedly Robin Curtis wasn't considered for whatever reason.

Huge slap in the face for Robin Curtis. She played Saavick in two films for fuck's sake!

Posted: **2009-05-14 01:07pm**

Nephtys wrote:That would probably have improved the movie as much as removing Chang's spiel of 'I shall now quote something every five seconds! Shakespeare Cat is Shakespeare!'

I don't know; I'm rather fond of the "Cry havoc" bit during the Battle of Khitomer, as is Steve unless I'm mistaken...

Posted: **2009-05-14 01:48pm**

Skylon wrote:
Havok wrote:My basic and simplistic take on the situation.

Original cast:
Star Trek: The Final Frontier- Questioned God, but not really, classic villain, dealt with personal relationships

Sybok's a "classic villain"?

No no no... God no. Sybok falls under the "dealt with personal relationships", the Klingons, albeit they had a small role, were who I was talking about.

Posted: **2009-05-14 03:36pm**

Stofsk wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:If I remember right, Kirstie Alley either wasn't interested or wanted too much money, Nick Meyer didn't want a third actress to play Saavik, and supposedly Robin Curtis wasn't considered for whatever reason.
Huge slap in the face for Robin Curtis. She played Saavick in two films for fuck's sake!

I also heard that Roddenberry didn't want Saavik to be the traitor because the character was very popular with fans, and thought her betraying the Federation would be out of character.

To which Meyer basically shot back, "Gene didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I'm the one who wrote the character in the first place, and I say she would."

Posted: **2009-05-14 05:53pm**

Sybok seemed more like a wooly headed trickster who wanted to do good, instead of being a vengeance seeking sociopath like Khan, so he seemed pretty weak. Malcolm McDowell's Soran was also quite boring, a waste of a good actor, he seemed more sinister than Sylar in Heroes.

Talking about sterility, I thought The Motion Picture felt rather atypical from the other TOS with its less gritty, more 2001: A Space Odyssey feel, with the milky/cream white walls and uniforms.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?

Re: Why were TNG Movies Mediocre?