Patrick Stewart is a great actor. Really good. He is a horrible story writer, idea generator, executive producer, showrunner, and creative consultant. On TNG, he did his job well and played the character written for him with distinction, as all good actors do. But once he had a say in what Picard would be, Picard became more like Patrick Stewart. Soon, Stewart wasn't acting but playing himself or who he wished to be. I would not follow Patrick Stewart into the flames of Antares, but I would for TNG Picard.
Every TNG movie has a few great scenes, but they all had the same story: Britishy villain has a plan that the two stars, Data and Picard, work together to foil. Worf has has a memorable introductory scene. Data has a side-plot about some aspect of his androidhood that contributes almost nothing to the main story. The rest of the crew allies with random new characters to defeat a secondary threat and herd civilians to safety. 50% of the time, a child drops something important that makes the evacuation more tense. The Enterprise gets disabled in battle. A primary Starfleet character predictably meets their end in the third act. Picard, the renowned diplomat, defeats the villain in hand to hand combat on some form of scaffolding. The crew stand in the aftermath of the conflict while Picard makes a comforting speech. The end. You're welcome, signed Rick Berman
Wow, great points! The "Britishly" villains! A British accent may have improved the boring Borg Queen (make her scarier or make her sexier... she was neither!) The repeated "scaffolding" setting made me laugh out loud! All (or mostly) about Picard and Data... yep. Picard the action hero! LOLOL!
@@winstedwildmanresearch Yup. Alice Krige is South African (Dutch), Tom Hardy and Malcolm McDowell are British. F. Murray Abraham is American. Abraham and Krige are often cast as Brits and/or Europeans. "Britishy!"
@@bartsanders1553 Oh yeah. A couple of times EmoData gets a couple of catchphrases which landed with the audience in the theater. In the grand scheme of things, it would have actually been funnier if he'd just questioned all orders with "Whachoo talkin' 'bout, Picard?" That stuff probably went well with test audiences, but whooof...20-30 years later those lines are rough. I'd say in all four, Data/B4 has a "Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz" moment toward the end. Berman gave us a lot of good Star Trek, but he was really struggling in those films. I think First Contact was good because he was bound to get the same formula to work at least 1 out of 4 times he tried it.
“You know that pain and guilt can’t be taken away with the wave of a magic wand! They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my pain taken away, I need my pain!”
I don't entirely agree. There are reasons that a person pretending to be God might want to employ people and their ships if it is to suggest that he wants humanity to share in God's work. But since this God imposter asked Kirk and crew if they had a ship to could carry his message, I think a more interesting question might have been, "Why aren't you aware of what ship we have?" This question indicates this God imposter's fraudulence much more pointedly."
Your objection further illustrates why it was a good question. It reveals that, as you stated, it's an imposter. I agree that he should have followed with additional questions like the one you suggested. But it also is an element of the film that people forget when evaluating the film. It's a much better film than it gets credit for and I believe it to be the most underrated of all the Star Trek films.
@ajmittendorf you're wrong. It exposed the being as a fraud when he refused to answer and was angered by a simple question. Had it been "God" and he gave a reason, that would have been another story. But this phony couldn't even answer.
He's a hell of an actor, but he kinda lost his way not understanding his own character in Picard. How does he not understand the diplomacy that is the groundwork and foundation of the Picard character? We didn't really want another action hero in Picard. We just wanted a strong performance that was in character for Picard
@@walker1984 he understands it. he just never liked it. He always wanted more action-y stuff (so he got pacified in things like Captain's Holiday, Starship Down etc). but the movies is where he really started to put his foot down that he wanted to be less diplomat more action hero and used that as leverage to come back (and then you know. PICARD happened). shame really.
I love Star Trek The Motion Picture the most. The atmosphere is so strange but it feels the most ambitious and has some really thoughtful moments. Also has my favourite music.
They were actually exploring an 'unknown' which was Roddenberry's original vision for Star Trek. I like or love most of the other films but they kind of got away from that idea.
One of the biggest challenges the TNG films faced was not just that the first film was released in the same year the series ended, but that with the show getting a proper series finale, their story had essentially been told. A big factor in TOS’ success after it was cancelled was that it had been cut short, so there was the feeling of unfinished business driving everything.
Halfway through your review you hit on a point I have championed for decades. You phrase it as, "The TOS cast is simply more charismatic." I phrase it differently: "The TOS characters are simply better defined." Yes, I love TNG, but with the exception of Picard, Data, Worf -- and to some extent Troi -- how the characters think, speak, act and react on that series was always less defined than on TOS. Drop Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty into any situation and it's easy for even a novice screenwriter to fashion a plausible scene for them. You could remove the character slugs from the screenplay and know immediately which character was saying what. Could you do the same with Picard, Riker, Crusher and LaForge? Not so easily. That, IMHO, remains the enduring strength of TOS. (And which is why it's been parodied for more often than TNG!)
I think it's helped but TOS having always been the Kirk/Spock/McCoy show, so the movies just felt like a more accurate portrayal of how the show was. TNG episodes made more use of the whole cast, so the more narrow focus of the movies made them feel like a different thing.
I'd also like to add that the TOS trio were more archetypal than the TNG cast, and therefore, you could argue, more universal and malleable to the plot. Put in somewhat simplified terms; Spock is logic, McCoy is passion, and Kirk is the ideal balance between the two (i.e. the captain/leader). This works so well for both drama and levity, and is one of the reasons why the characters has endured for so long. The TNG characters are in many ways much more nuanced and arguably realistic, but this does ironically also make them somewhat (for lack of a batter word) dull. As pointed out in the video, this works well over several seasons, but not so much when they're all crammed into a single movie.
To quote Wayne Campbell in "Wayne's World", "It's much like Star Trek: The Next Generation. While in many ways it is superior, it will never be as recognized as the original".
@@docsavage8640 On the flip-side fewer episodes also means less time for character-inconsistencies. I have the feeling the TOS-characters were either written more consistently or there was a firmer control on what writers were allowed to do with the characters to serve the story. In TNG we have Picard telling Wesley "The first duty of starfleet-officer is to the truth" (The First duty) but also admonishing him for telling the truth ("Journey's End"). While neither is out of character for Picard, they don't mix well especially because he is angry at Wesley in both scenes meaning he passionately disagrees with Wesleys behaviour in both instances.
One thing I notice Dave is with the TOS films there is an aura of hopeful excitement of the future everytime I watch one. Especially ST:TMP and Wrath of Khan. TNG films do feel like big budget 2 hour tv movies. I never get that awe of seeing the future with TNG.
I agree with everything you said, but I also wish to add that while TNG season 7 wasn't bad, it was clear that the team was running out of ideas. This was the same team that then tried to make movies. Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer, the men who shaped the TOS movies were not involved with the production of the TV show and had fresh ideas.
TOS dynamic of Kirk Spock and Mcoy worked exceptionally well, Spocks logic clashing with Mcoys heart and Kirk in the middle, along with philosophically deep concepts, whereas TNG are primarily Picard with a crew following him and few deep philosophical moments and instead gimmicky episode of the week type stories.
In TNG it was Data who asked the philosophical questions based on logic and Picard who answered (sometimes that there was no easy answer) - different mechanic, but the core was still there. On DS9 it was Sisco, Kira and Bashir (and later Worf) approaching problem from different perspectives. Early Voyager lacked those debates until 7of9 came aboard and thats why that character made the later seasons so much better.
@@gildor8866 Yeah true, I suppose TOS trio did it best and most naturally. Hard to say how much of that was down to the writing or the acting. Specifically about the TNG films I just think they are missing that central philosophical core that the first films had.
As you said, Picard is a diplomat not an action hero. Imagine how good the TNG movies _could_ have been if they leaned into that more. Have Worf and Riker do all the action stuff needed to _get_ Picard to the place where he needs to be to save the day diplomatically, like stopping a war or convincing the faction leaders not to use some kind of doomsday weapon, etc. or even just using logic to confound a deranged computer with a riddle or puzzle, _anything_ intellectual rather than physical. Hell, he's supposed to be the captain! Have him give commands to all the other crew members in a way that makes use of their various talents to save the day with some elaborate plan. You know, like they used to do in the TV show. Then the movies would have been incredible.
"He tasks me, he tasks me and i shall have him. From the moons Nebir, round the Antares Maelstrom BEFORE I GIVE HIM UP!". Also," Khan, Im laughing at the Superior intellect." "We have Genesis, Enterprise isnt going anywhere." "FULL POWER DAMN YOU!!". Those are the qoutes i'll remember most from Wrath of Khan. I love the TOS movies, Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country are my favorites.
"Yesterday Enterprise" is the glimpse to how a true TNG films could have been. Nothing of the nonsense of Picard action hero and cheesy plot lines. I wish they would have given the control to John McTiernan and do a Red October in space for instance. Or Brian De Palma and do a MI 1 in space. There is a missing for a true military thriller in space. Insead we got the same shinzan bad guy plot over and over again.
@@FunPicard I like yesterday's Enterprise, but the story revolves around a first season character who died "a meaningless death." This makes a more of an insider, regular viewer story.
For me, the biggest failing on Generations was Kirk and Picard's meeting in the matrix. Picard: Come back with me Kirk: No Picard: yes Kirk: no Picard: yes Kirk: oh alright then I felt at the time that that entire sequence was awful and my opinion hasn't changed. I do agree that the first 10 minutes was phenomenal. When that bottle of champagne came into view... I will never forget that moment as I sat there in the cinema.
I love the TOS movies because they felt bigger than the series. The movie was essentially a reboot in a way with the TOS crew. TNG needed a bit of a reboot to disconnect from its series. It also needed a longer time break between the series end and movie. Anyway, I love the Genesis Trilogy and the continuation of the story between those film with vastly different scenarios and settings within . The world building that those three films did is the reason why the subsequent shows had much to draw upon. Anyway, great video Dave. Cheers! 🖖😎👍
Just rewatched TOS movies.. I still think to this day, the story connection between II and III is perhaps one of the most unique and impactful ones I've ever seen in a "set" of movies. Additionally, when it comes to the TNG movies... for some reason, Generations ... holds a really high spot on my list, I love almost everything about that movie.
TNG movies had the same production quality as the TV series, so TOS had an edge with the storytelling and the characters... Good analysis, Patrick Stewart really screwed a few things up
I have always considered Patrick Stewart a ham actor, going as far back as, "I Claudius". Stewart loves to believe in his own act. It took a few years, but it finally came out how Stewart has treated fans as well, depending on who they were. I've always liked the character Picard. I've never cared for the ham actor Patrick Stewart.
Just watched Star Trek 4 again the other night. On this watch I was impressed how they gave all the cast some screen time, and it never felt like the plot was put on hold to do so. It shows how good a script it is.
TNG cast were great actors but TOS cast, especially the big 3 really felt like epic heroes in their autumn years. I've always felt DeForest Kelley was especially good in the films. He had great understated intensity.
I do think one of the main reasons is that the TOS films, with the exception of the Motion Picture, all deal with subject matter that had never been done in Star Trek before. A full scale naval battle with a former rival of Kirk had never been done in Star Trek. Kirk trying to find the body of his dead friend and put his spirit to rest had never been done before. Time travelling to find an extinct species of whales to save the future had never been done before. Literally searching for God with a crazy Vulcan in command had never been done before. Conversely, all the TNG films were all about subject matter that had already been done before, sometimes multiple times both in the TOS films and the TNG show. Insurrection is literally the plot of two pre-existing TNG episodes with a few different details changed around. Nemesis is essentially a slightly different spin on a Mirror Universe episode, which had been done in a whopping six episodes by that point. First Contact on the surface has the same plot outline of over a dozen Star Trek episodes. I know that newness and novelty do not exactly result in quality, but I do think it plays a part into why the TNG movies just don't have the same energy as the TOS films.
I disagree. While I prefer DS9 over TNG, I do like all of the TNG characters aside from Crusher (I preferred Pulaski). While they aren't bigger than life like TOS, I think that's more because the pioneers and trailblazers are often held higher than those who follow.
Honestly I think the best characters from TNG are Picard, Worf, Data and Riker. The two ladies were just ok whereas the two ladies from TOS are amazing. And I also prefer DS9 over TNG but not over TOS.
Yeah, I'm of the same mind. TOS came out at just the right time, the late 70's and 80s when big budget sci-fi and adventure films were really finding their stride, so many (Blade Runner, Close Encounters, Return of The Jedi, Terminator, Aliens) and Star Trek fit right in. TNG came onboard in the 90s, a more cynical sardonic era where horror and snark action cheese were the dominant pictures. Not to mention it was just TNG: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.
I assume you're referring to the movies and not the series. When TOS came out, in the 60s, was well before the unexpected success of Star Wars made science-fiction widely acceptable. Before that, science-fiction was considered to be childish comic-book stuff. People forget just how much the general public used to look down on things like Star Trek - And the widespread contempt that fans had to ignore....
@@_XR40_ Yes I meant original movies, good for clarity. Star Trek was a partial inspiration to George Lucas along with Flash Gordon. The Star Wars Trilogy then helped Star Trek have an easier time getting to the big screen.
I was fortunate to have parents that were STOS fans. my dad actually took me to see ST: The Motion Picture at the theater. going to the movies was a luxury my parents could hardly afford. so going meant a lot more to me than simply seeing a movie with dad. my mom was enough of a fan to name my youngest brother after a STOS character. Shaun Geoffrey. they went with the American spelling of Shawn Jeffrey. a character that was never on screen. in Tomorrow is Yesterday the air force captain they transport onto the enterprise had to be returned to earth because of the importance that his future son (colonel Shaun Geoffrey Christopher.) plays in future history. thanks for reading this ridiculous mess about my life. God bless ya of you read till the end.
With no ill-will, and not be obnoxious, but _Sean_ is an Irish name - And it is spelled S-e-a-n. I really have no idea where these weird modern variants came from...
Dave, I think this was your best video yet and was very thought provoking. It made me reflect on my true feelings of Star Trek over the past 30+ years and I think you are spot on. I don’t think the TNG films really worked and the Generations movie did far more damage than we think to the franchise going forward, after that I never felt as comfortable with TNG particuarly with Picard as an action hero. I think blowing up the ENT D symbolised so much, only compounded with how Kirk was treated. I am not sure deep down I was happy with TNG after ‘All Good Things’, right through till 2023. Thank you for making me feel it wasn’t ‘just me’.
I think you're right for the most part on TNG being on the heels of a 7-year successful show as opposed to the TOS films, which EASILY out spectacled the TV show which spawned them. (TNG wasn't so easy to out spectacle on the big screen.) TNG also had the benefit of the Star Trek name pre-established to carry it through its rocky first two seasons. Although the TNG films were well made and certainly watchable, they 'played it safe' for the most part, delivering moves the producers KNEW would please fans; whereas ST II & III took major chances with the death of Spock and the destruction of the original Enterprise respectively. Ultimately, I feel Trek belongs on the small screen, yet the TOS movie era will always be my favorite era in all of Trek.
I tend to agree with everything Dave has to say here. The odd think about TOS is that it has this mythology surrounding its original run saying that the audience ratings just weren't there which is why it got cancelled. This is actually not true. There are several books out there telling its story from files, letters and first hand accounts from producers, directors and showrunners of TOS that tell us it was beating out way more successful shows at the time. However it was very expensive to make and after the studio shook things up for the last season, pretty much torpedoing the show, and the audience ratings sank a little due to the terrible writing the studio had an excuse to can it. Even though another letter writing campaign was launched to bring it back this time the studio ignored the fans and let TOS die.
Unfortunately, demographics hadn't come into play during TOS' initial run. Had they realized that Star Trek appealed to the very audience, predominantly 18-45 males with expendable income, that sponsors wanted to sell to, it would have been considered a runaway hit.
Might also help to keep in mind that the NBC executives had nothing but contempt for the show and felt that it hurt the _prestige_ of the network. Remember this was well before the unexpected success of _Star Wars_ made science-fiction widely acceptable. Before that, science-fiction was considered to be childish comic-book stuff. People forget just how much the general public used to look down on things like Star Trek, Batman, etc....
@@_XR40_ You mentioned that "science-fiction was considered to be childish comic-book stuff" for networks and the general public at the time, but what about *_The Twilight Zone_* ? I would have thought the success of that show would have changed everyone's perspective on science-fiction, especially the networks...
@@CrimsonID4 _Twilight Zone_ was more "fantasy" or allegory. I should have been more specific and used a term like "Space Opera". It was running around exploring and adventuring with spaceships that was considered childish. The term was "that Buck Rogers stuff". It was a genre thing - Thus _Star Trek_ would be viewed more like a Saturday-morning kid's show, while _Twilight Zone_ would be seen as social commentary...
Time was the biggest issue as you mentioned. Growing up during that time I remember Star Trek overload in the mid 90’s. TOS, TNG, DS9 then Voyager all on TV at one point or another. I had all the TOS films on VHS in a special box set and remember watching 4 the most since it took place in the Bay Area of California where I was raised so there was a special connection, I went to the aquarium featured in the film countless times. Sadly something changed around the time insurrection was released, I got burnt out. I skipped it and skipped nemesis, I skipped half of DS9 and most of Voyager. With literally thousands of hours of trek available it just wasn’t special anymore, not unlike what happened to Star Wars recently.
The Next Gen films were often missed opportunities ... Yes, they had a big Borg movie ... But they never included Q, or any of the other more epic enemies they could have brought back. They felt too safe ... but I still love them for different reasons.
While I agree that there were missed opportunities, what on earth could you make a movie with Q about? I hate the character partially because I find him annoying but also because it feels too much like a writer actively controlling what happens. Unlike with an actual deity character, which might have some kind of restrictions, either self-imposed (monotheistic deities), being in conflict with another deity (polytheistic deities), or just being lacking in power (usually polytheistic deities if the situation falls outside of their specialty), Q can simply do almost anything on a whim. How do you write around that?
Yeah, I have to agree with you that the producers missed an opportunity when not revisiting some of the other villainous characters established in the TV series. The biggest miss, I think, was not going with Q in a movie. It seemed to me that when Q said, "See you out there! " at the end of All Good Things, they were hinting at Q showing up in a movie. There was no question at the time that Paramount was going to make TNG movies after such a successful series.
Brilliant observations. I think you nailed it perfectly. TNG should have waited at least 5 years before reuniting for a feature film. We didn’t have time to miss it. With TOS we were starving for more Star Trek.
When we consider that all Sci Fi these days has GIANT CONSEQUENCES baked in, it only makes me fonder of Insurrection. It’s more Trek than a lot of the things before it and all of the Trek after it. The villain is top tier in rhyme, reason and execution too.
First Contact I think benefits the most from “action Picard” because in that storyline it made the most sense. He was still dealing with his emotions over the Borg, he was angry & out for revenge… thus grabbing a phaser & going at it was true to that. He wanted to hurt them like they hurt him. I myself thought this paralleled nicely with how Picard S3 panned out because there he went back to beating the Borg in a way that was ultimately true to himself. He beat them using his heart & mind by pulling Jack back from the brink. He’d found himself again. I felt like it closed the arc on his life with the Borg quite nicely.
My big thing is the TOS films (warts and all) felt like logical continuations of the show. The TNG films (and I really like First Contact) by contrast felt like the needed to twist the characters far more to make their plots work.
Actually the ratings were low, it was going to be cancelled after two seasons, but a fan letter-writing campaign led to a third season, but ratings were still low so it was cancelled after that. TNG is the one that was cancelled at the height of its popularity. It never had low ratings like DS9 and Voyager.
It was hard to get sponsors who were trying to target a given customer base. Advertisers want to hit likely buyers for what they're selling based on the 80-20 rule. That's why you see beer ads during football games, makeup ads during daytime talk shows, or toys during kiddie shows. Trek viewers were a bit more generalized and, therefore, not seen as cost-effective to advertisers. They gave it that bad time slot (3rd season) to KILL it. As a kid, I couldn't watch season 3 because it was past my bedtime.
@@masere TNG didn't get cancelled... It just ran it's course, and there were other productions just getting underway like DS9, and Voyager which debuted a year after...
The argument I heard was that because the original series was fairly static with it's characters, the movies were able to explore them as people a lot better since they were no longer under the writing constraints of episodic television. Because their relationships were more static also meant that the heartfelt moments of the films felt more profound, or at least believable. The TNG movies however suffer from the problem that the characters have pretty much already all have their arcs. There's really nothing new they could do with them. There's also the fact that because the ensemble cast was much bigger, the films being pretty much just Picard & Data Show feels like a _reduction_ in terms of characterization from the TV series, whereas with TOS it was the opposite.
I think Dave touched on it a bit, but what made the TOS films stand out more I think was that for the majority of their run, it was the only Star Trek game in town. TNG films were being released during a time when you had two tv series still running. From 79 to 86, it was just TOS re-runs and then a new movie every 2-3 years. There was just stronger and greater demand for the product.
The TOS films show a lot of growth in the characters and time has passed. WOK “catches up” and takes place 13 years after TMP where they did another five year mission and the Enterprise is a training vessel. It allowed for growth even if some of the cast stuck around as teachers. TNG other than Worf and Riker/Troi/Crusher at then end of Nemesis, they’re all chilling on the Enterprise-E.
I think a few of the Trek movies are judged far too harshly. They are all decent movies in their own right. But none more so than Nemesis, I never quite understood the amount of hate that movie got. I watch it fairly regularly and always enjoy it.
ST: Generations is actually a really good film it just has the stink on it of being the movie that killed Captain Kirk. There is no washing away that stink. YOU DON'T KILL CAPTAIN KIRK!
Personally I grew to love the way Kirk died. It was long established he’d die alone, and having him die on a remote planet for a “pre-warp civilization” he or the audience never sees is VERY classic Trek philosophy.
To me, Generations was the most inconsistent movie. If everything that happens in the Nexus isn't real, then that would mean when they go back in time in the Nexus to stop Soran, none of that actually happened and they're still somewhere in the Nexus to this day.
I always enjoy a Star Trek movie. Even the average ones are still a lot of fun. And when they are great like 2, 3, 4, 6 and First Contact the films are absolute classics!
I've always felt that Patrick Stewart's ego wouldn't allow the films to be about anything other than his character, forcing the films writers to essentially make a non TNG film.
Great insights! For me it comes down to the dynamic between the actors ultimately. My favorite thing about original star trek is watching the interactions between them all. For whatever reason it just works. I would happily watch them running a post office together and in 45 years time I would still want to watch. Much less so with the Tng actors. it worked in its own way but honestly you could recast almost any of them and i think it could trundle on. Much less so with the Tos. There is also something about the overall vibe of the TOS show that is far more appealing then Tng. If i was stuck on the enterprise with the tng crew I think i would be looking for the nearest airlock within an hour. The tos ship you couldnt pay me to get off of it!
My husband showed me all the Star Trek films (all those prior to 2009, anyway) and I really enjoyed the ones with Kirk, Spock, et al. When it came to TNG, my feeling was “Data? AGAIN?” Yes, we know. He’s an android with humanity. We get it. Move along, please. Sorry - I didn’t really grow up watching TNG and when I have seen any of it, it feels like they’re just angsting over Data’s identity crisis yet again. After a while, you start to wonder if they knew how to do anything else in this show/franchise. While I enjoyed Picard Season 3, you can guess what was my least favorite part of the show.
TOS focused on Kirk, Spock, & McCoy. So it was easy to transition to movies. TNG gave everyone a lot of screen time so when it came to those movies fans of characters besides Picard and Data were inevitably going to be disappointed.
I'm not sure if this will make sense, but to me, it felt like TNG was more... corporate? TOS felt like space exploration was brand-new, like the Wild West of space. TNG felt like it was much more mature, someone else said it felt kind of like a conference at a Mariot hotel in space. Picard and crew were very "by the book", whereas Kirk was blazing a trail and got in over his head more than a few times. TOS was "boldly going where no man had gone before", TNG was "casually traveling to diplomatic meetings and exploring interpersonal relationships". I loved TNG, but in a different way from TOS. The Borg episodes were the most TOS-like to me in tone.
TNG films didn't stick to what made it so strong a TV show, their films should have been closer to the likes of TMP. I know Patrick Stewart wanted to be "action hero" but look at Kirk in his film outings. He had one big fight at the end of Search for Spock, and only throws a few punches in 5 & 6, hardly the stuff of big action heroes, it was appropriately restrained. TOS films were also made under the very real pressure that if they got it wrong, that would be the end of the films. Nicholas Meyer got it spot on with him saying: "art thrives on restrictions" being forced to be creative to get around budget/logistical problems, was ultimately to the benefit of the material, something else TNG films didn't really need to contend with. Generations even bucked the trend, they got handed more money to re-film the ending and top up the effects after the studio said they were "happy" with the bulk of the other material.
I still think that Wrath of Khan created a core emotional moment for the audience and the characters. Like a magical first date where you fall in love. WoK set a lot of things in motion that could give deeper meaning to later ST movies. TNG just lacked their version of such a movie.
The biggest complaint, I remember, for Star Trek generations is that it was a missed opportunity to have all the cast from the original series in the movie. I agree but I still love that movie.
I think the best TNG film was First Contact; the scene about Moby Dick , and the “I envy you” lines were excellent! Those grab me best, like, in a nostalgic way
Star Trek Generations will probably always be my favorite theatergoing experience: my dad got us sneak preview tickets, so it was me, him, and all the Trekkers in my city. They laughed, clapped, and cheered in all the right places, and I thought Data was hilarious, and the Nexus and Malcolm McDowell were interesting, and Riker saying “Fire” and waiting as the photon torpedo found its way to Lursa and B’Etor’s ship was awesome and triumphant.
There should've at least been a follow up episode for Tin Man huh, that is one of my fave episodes actually. It was written by a fan though and sent in (back when they used to allow that, Ronald D Moore was one such fan writer that was later hired, he didn't write Tin Man mind), they probably didn't want to pay him residuals.
I personally love all of the TNG movies and now really do appreciate their "long episode" like story telling. I can certainly see and understand criticisms of the films but one point you brought up made me realize something. You mentioned the TNG films lacked impact of the original series movies and I think that entirely boils down to when they were made. TNG films were made while concurrent TV shows were on going, in a time before the MCU writers and producers probably didn't want the movies to "upset the apple cart" sort of speak as any large changes to the universe would impact the shows and they probably didn't want to expect TV Show watchers to go see the movies or make it mandatory viewing. Therefore the TNG movies are self-contained episodic movies with the only kind of exception being First Contact but the Defiant and Worf from Deep Space 9 appear as you would expect, and then its a timey wimey movies so as soon as the Borg are dealt with it all just works out so no big changes. Meanwhile the OS movies have no such restrictions, in fact if anything they were expected to expand the universe. Nearly every outing was a change for the scene as a whole culminating in the biggest change which was the Kitimer accords, transforming Klingon enemies into allies. Such a change would never have happened in the TNG movies. They tried with the Romulans saying they were interested in talking at the end but then they completely ruin that setup by never going back to that timeframe and then BLOWING UP ROMULUS. Anyway, Generations is probably the prettiest one to watch, the lighting in some of the scenes is just inspired, First Contact is well First Contact, Insurrection is a fun romp with your favorite characters juiced up on some teenage angst, and Nemesis is a dark look at character and how life shapes you with a god damn awesome space battle at the end that puts anything modern trek has done to absolute shame.
Star Trek is the perfect example of 'if you start with a good script, you will get a good film' The motionless picture, was being written while they were shooting, and it shows Star Trek 5, a problem with the third act "we will fix it later" and they did not Generations, we must force the old cast and the new cast together Nemesis, the director was an editor, not a director, did not know Star Trek
Picard leading the resistance against the Borg on the Enterprise in First Contact I think was a good choice for the character. That was THE time where it felt appropriate for Picard to abandon the diplomat and take up a phaser. But in the other three films it feels so out of place.
Dave, I feel Nemesis could've focused on the aftermath of the Dominion War, and looking back at the deaths of so many people. The film could've opened with a flashback action sequence, showing the Enterprise E battling a Dominion fleet. Then it cuts to a couple years later, where, instead of Riker and Troi's wedding, we see Picard speaking at a starfleet ceremony in San Francisco, honouring all those federation officers who lost their lives. We could've seen a DS9 characters in attendance, such as Miles O'Brien, Julian Bashir, Nog and, of course, Worf. Heck, we could've seen Admiral Ross give a speech too.
TOS films just look better ! Yes as you say they look 70s. But there’s something really good looking about the old style masks and physical model work.
It all just generally looked more real and lived-in. I think it had to do with the necessity of practical effects and that's just how they built the sets.
I think people tend to think of Captain Kirk as a fist-throwing lothario a bit too much. Yes, he was a "man of action," but not without thought going before action, and, yes, he had a romance here and there, but not so much as people falsely remember. So when Kirk and Picard meet in "Generations" and Kirk says, "I was saving the galaxy when you were in diapers (or whatever the line was), I rolled my eyes, because I didn't believe that was something he would ever say, and I didn't believe that was someone Picard could look up to. I could go on, but you hit the major beats. Another great video.
Quite true. Kirk was definitely capable of action when needed, but he was also always diplomatic when possible, reflective and never irresponsible - His duty and obligations were _always_ his primary motivations. The problem is that he was an "Alpha-male" and that has gone out of fashion - Thus he is portrayed in a derogatory manner (see JJ Abrams)
First Contract is, to me, the perfect blend of action and thoughtfulness from Cpt Picard. Though the action focus only work because it's against the Borg, who he has a true motivation to hate. He's even compared to Captain Ahab at one point, and the concept really gets the better of him because he understands the gravity of the comparison.
Not my favorite, but I always liked it. With an in-canon jump of about 14 years between the original show and The Wrath of Khan, I think of it as a missing years type of story.
William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy should be on that list as well…not counting Trek 5 of course. Nimoy more so because of the lengths he went to protect Trek and demand a solid script. Shatner brought his A game when playing Kirk and took him to a new level.
Generations would have been fine if they had just given Kirk better scenes and not killed him... Send him back, or send him a few year into his future, so that people mourned him, and there would be possibility of another TOS sequel-- Finding Kirk.
The ToS movies tackled really BIG issues... The Motion Picture tackles humanity, transcendence, and meaning. Wrath of Khan tackled regrets, mistakes that come back to haunt us, aging, and death. The Search for Spock dealt with friendship, religion, and life after death. The Voyage Home dealt with environmental disaster, healing the planet, and the question of the origin of life. Even ST-5, dealt with the problem of pain. And The Undiscovered Country dealt with Peace and war. In contrast the TNG episodes dealt with smaller-scale issues: Data finally getting his emotion chip to work, Picard's on-going PTSD with the Borg, a complicated issue with Starfleet oppressing an indigenous people, and yet another clone/Romulan saga. Data "dies" but is replaced by "B-4." The Enterprise (D) is destroyed but replaced with an even cooler one (E) in the very next movie. There just are no real "stakes" in the TNG movies. Even without the subsequent ST material, you're left wondering...in an almost Schroedinger's Box fashion...whether Kirk will stay dead or can he come back AGAIN from the Nexus. They're fun enough romps, but they are shallow.
TOS took ten years to get to films because the fans demanded it. The show was #1 in syndication during the 70s, so it generated tremendous support. By contrast, Paramount wanted TNG -- which had little support from fans at the time. Roddenberry came on board when he saw what they planned to and wasn't thrilled. TNG is a great show, maybe the last TV show to have (1) high ratings (2) wide demographic appeal to kids/adults (3) cultural impact (4) extensive merchandising -- not a couple of posters; posters to action figures and games . Movies tend to favor an action/ adventure format --much more suited to TOS than the talky, technobabble filled TNG.
Thanks for the deep dive Cullen. I think where it all went wrong with the films for the Next Generation was the writing of those films. For First Contact the writing with the direction that Frakes had it was very well executed. With Insurrection it was the budget, writing, and Stewart having an impact that. All in all there was some great scenes in each film.
Maybe one film could of worked, but only one where it's a rescue for Sisko from the fire caves that actually sounds great but my only worry is that they wouldn't stop and milk DS9 until it's dry with it's lore and characters ruined. DS9 was great for knowing when to end I know some people give season 7 shit (to be fair what they did the Ferengi was dumb turning them into a diet Federation and say what you will about Quark and his species, he's not wrong that their culture was basically nuked by Rom and the old Nagus) but at least it knew to end with the Dominion War's finally. With only one last episode afterwards as a send off to the characters, wrapping up loose ends.
i think another possible reason the original series films were generally better, is that the original TV series was the only Trek to be found at the time (the first 4 movies came out before The Next Gen even aired)...this (coupled with the original TV series only having 3 seasons) meant their were a lot more options for stories that could be told (The Next Generation movies had their 7 season of stories, plus Deep Space Nine and Voyager as well)...film-making was also a very different animal in the 90s...
The TNG movies, minus First Contact, really do suffer from creative drain. Voyager was on TV at the time and I'm rewatching the show right now. It suffers from the same problem. The episodes are boring, not because they are bad, but because TOS, TNG, and DS9 already did those story lines. Voyager has episodes that are "Event Television," that are exceptionally good, spread out between episodes that had already been done before.
First Contact succeeded with excellent writing, ambitious plot AND action, memorable villain with well defined motivation... This is the only cinematic TNG era film. Most of the TOS Films (except Star Trek 5) had these cinematic qualities.
If I may Dave I think there’s one other reason you didn’t talk about in your video for why the next gen movies didn’t quite work. You nailed 90% of it but for some reason lately I’ve thought a lot about it. I think a major factor too was there was no through line for the characters in the story. Like you mentioned Picard and data were the main focus of the movies but everyone else just kind of became window dressing. We could’ve seen riker at the end of insurrection decide it’s time for him to step up and take command. We could’ve see Geordi make the decision about his new cybernetic eyes or even Beverly decide that maybe she’s been in space long enough and she wants to go back to earth at starfleet medical. Part of the reason nemesis feels so hollow is because the characters had remained virtually frozen in time since “generations” when it came out. We didn’t see them grow or change really unlike what we saw with the original series casts movies. When the time came for Chekov to set his course we’d seen these amazing people grow so much together. Of course we would’ve loved another adventure but the time was right for their adventures together to conclude. With tng until season 3 of Picard there was no real resolution to anyone’s story arcs except Picard and data in Picard season 1. I do love this video though and I’m glad this cast got the send off they deserve along with their recent lifetime achievement reward. They changed the face of television by showing a franchise doesn’t need to end with its original core group and can grow beyond what anyone could’ve dreamed of.
Thanks Dave, !Well, to start Wrath of Khan is in my top 10 films of all time, so TOS has a huge advantage there. In terms of overall quality of characters and story TOS wins hands down ( again, nothing beat WoK) . I actually enjoy most of Generations ( especially the score, Data's jokes, and I liked Shatner and Stewart together - the riding sequence made a logical setting given both Picard's and Shatner's real life love of horses) but with a little more creativity it could have been a lot better ( Picard's family tragedy was a bit forced although Stewart played it well, he delivers " The family would go on," with believable bitterness. First Contact is easily the best TNG film, Insurrection feels very generic, although the rogue Data sequence was fun. Nemesis manages to squander what should have been the most emotional moment in TNG, Data's sacrifice
I forgot to mention that I felt that Undiscovered Country gave the TOS crew the perfect sendoff, and I liked Kirk's arc overcoming his hatred of Klingons, the Cold War allegory worked IMHO, although probably more for people like me who actually lived through the end of the Real Cold War. Cheers.
Growing up, I used to love TNG, and I loved the TNG movies. These days though I stick to TOS, Patrick Stewart has just totally ruined TNG for me. I can never look at TNG the same way again because of him.
The original crew had charisma and the IT factor. You dont just see Shatner, or Takei, or Walter on the street... you see those characters and you relive those adventures. I like and respect the TNG crew, but they werent the original batch. Yes they filled in some really big shoes but its not Star Trek without the original crew and the first three versions of the Enterprise. That what set the standard. Everyone elae just follows behind.
TNG has a few 2 part episodes that you could argue were basically movies (Best of Both Worlds) etc I never felt the excitement level esp from friends anticipating TNG movies
While I don't agree with your issue on the timing of the first TNG film (strike while the iron is hot, and all that), I think you were spot on in many other places. The biggest one, I think, was the feeling that all of the TNG films really do seem like bigger budget, two part, episodes. They had the budgets to make movies, but not the writers. I don't actually dislike any of the movies, but some are certainly better than others.
Great video and great observations, Dave! I think you've hit a couple of the things that made the difference for the TOS fan. They waited YEARS for their characters to return. Untold numbers of fans died over that span, never seeing their heroes return. The desire was so high that even the relatively weak (though after watching the post 2009 ST films I rate it much higher now than I did before) Motion Picture was a triumph because THEY WERE BACK! I was 11 in '79 but I had seen and loved many of TOS and TOS-A (the animated series) episodes on summer reruns so I was happy that they had returned. Then Wrath came along and the mania spread because of what a strong production that was. We waited and finally they delivered and boy were we happy. TNG just went too quickly from TV to movie and I think the pace meant that the scripts and the movies suffered. It really did feel like leftover two-part episodes more than cinematic features and while I didn't hate them, they were just kinda meh. I can't remember any of the scenes from TNG movies with the intensity and joy that I remember scenes of the TOS movies. I didn't mind Picard taking more of an action hero role, but instead of being an addition to standard Picard it was more of a replacement of standard Picard and that, like you mentioned, just made it ring false. They could have and should have done better. But maybe the success of the TV show set the bar too high and, along with the additional ST property on the air it was just that it got lost in the clutter? I dunno. But even the TNG films I like I don't like nearly as much as the TOS films I like. And no ST movie I've seen (I've not seen Beyond) can knock Into Darkness out of its position as the worst ST film I've seen.
The original show had the trio of Kirk Spock and McCoy..TNG didn't have that..There were too many characters and Roddenberry didn't allow a big three to come forward.
Movies suffer from the people making thinking that all fans want pew pew pew when star trek fans prefer thinking things out. Star Wars fans like the constant action, but Star Trek fans want the thinking way out. My goodness in the series from Original all the way to Voyager. There were times that All the Captains could have destroyed the enemy, yet spared them. They were not fond of killing.
I agree it was a charisma and chemistry issue with the TNG films. I also feel like the plots and writing let them down. Generations has grown on me significantly but none of the TNG films felt as compelling. Probably first contact did the best in that regard but I could never get over the plot hole of sending a single cube. Why did the Borg send a single cube? Because there wouldn’t have been a movie otherwise.
Yeah, that never any sense. The same with "The Best of Both Worlds". Realistically the Borg would have sent a fleet of cubes into Federation space. But of course, if that happened, no more Federation. It's interesting to think now what would have happened if the producers of TNG had decided to be really dark and bold back then. Imagine they had allowed the Federation to be conquered or mostly conquered by the Borg. The rest of the series could have dealt with the Enterprise and other surviving Starfleet vessels trying to survive and figuring out how to eliminate the Borg. They could have gone ahead of Dr. Cusher's suggestion of using nanorobotics to defeat them.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The crew who steals a starship to save their friend will always be legendary in my book.
Patrick Stewart is a great actor. Really good. He is a horrible story writer, idea generator, executive producer, showrunner, and creative consultant. On TNG, he did his job well and played the character written for him with distinction, as all good actors do. But once he had a say in what Picard would be, Picard became more like Patrick Stewart. Soon, Stewart wasn't acting but playing himself or who he wished to be. I would not follow Patrick Stewart into the flames of Antares, but I would for TNG Picard.
Dignity. The old Crew was allowed to have some dignity. None of those fools jumbling around today (I'm looking at you, Burnham) has any of that.
Every TNG movie has a few great scenes, but they all had the same story:
Britishy villain has a plan that the two stars, Data and Picard, work together to foil.
Worf has has a memorable introductory scene.
Data has a side-plot about some aspect of his androidhood that contributes almost nothing to the main story.
The rest of the crew allies with random new characters to defeat a secondary threat and herd civilians to safety. 50% of the time, a child drops something important that makes the evacuation more tense.
The Enterprise gets disabled in battle.
A primary Starfleet character predictably meets their end in the third act.
Picard, the renowned diplomat, defeats the villain in hand to hand combat on some form of scaffolding.
The crew stand in the aftermath of the conflict while Picard makes a comforting speech.
The end.
You're welcome,
signed Rick Berman
Yeah, but who says the funny line at the end of Picard's specch to break the tension in the last seconds?
Wow, great points! The "Britishly" villains! A British accent may have improved the boring Borg Queen (make her scarier or make her sexier... she was neither!) The repeated "scaffolding" setting made me laugh out loud! All (or mostly) about Picard and Data... yep. Picard the action hero! LOLOL!
@@winstedwildmanresearch Yup. Alice Krige is South African (Dutch), Tom Hardy and Malcolm McDowell are British. F. Murray Abraham is American.
Abraham and Krige are often cast as Brits and/or Europeans.
"Britishy!"
@@bartsanders1553 Oh yeah. A couple of times EmoData gets a couple of catchphrases which landed with the audience in the theater.
In the grand scheme of things, it would have actually been funnier if he'd just questioned all orders with "Whachoo talkin' 'bout, Picard?"
That stuff probably went well with test audiences, but whooof...20-30 years later those lines are rough.
I'd say in all four, Data/B4 has a "Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz" moment toward the end.
Berman gave us a lot of good Star Trek, but he was really struggling in those films.
I think First Contact was good because he was bound to get the same formula to work at least 1 out of 4 times he tried it.
And every film manages to have a countdown at the end.
Star Trek 5 gave us one of Kirk's best lines. "What does God need with a starship?"
Exactly
“You know that pain and guilt can’t be taken away with the wave of a magic wand! They’re the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my pain taken away, I need my pain!”
I don't entirely agree. There are reasons that a person pretending to be God might want to employ people and their ships if it is to suggest that he wants humanity to share in God's work. But since this God imposter asked Kirk and crew if they had a ship to could carry his message, I think a more interesting question might have been, "Why aren't you aware of what ship we have?" This question indicates this God imposter's fraudulence much more pointedly."
Your objection further illustrates why it was a good question. It reveals that, as you stated, it's an imposter. I agree that he should have followed with additional questions like the one you suggested. But it also is an element of the film that people forget when evaluating the film. It's a much better film than it gets credit for and I believe it to be the most underrated of all the Star Trek films.
@ajmittendorf you're wrong. It exposed the being as a fraud when he refused to answer and was angered by a simple question. Had it been "God" and he gave a reason, that would have been another story. But this phony couldn't even answer.
I have never heard anything good about Patrick Stewart's decisions regarding Picard.
There's nothing good to say about it.
He should stick strictly to acting. ST:Picard proved he has no business in the producers' or writers' rooms.
He's a hell of an actor, but he kinda lost his way not understanding his own character in Picard. How does he not understand the diplomacy that is the groundwork and foundation of the Picard character? We didn't really want another action hero in Picard. We just wanted a strong performance that was in character for Picard
@@walker1984 patrick stewart never finished high school. He has admitted he has no idea what he was saying in tng
@@walker1984 he understands it. he just never liked it. He always wanted more action-y stuff (so he got pacified in things like Captain's Holiday, Starship Down etc). but the movies is where he really started to put his foot down that he wanted to be less diplomat more action hero and used that as leverage to come back (and then you know. PICARD happened). shame really.
I love Star Trek The Motion Picture the most. The atmosphere is so strange but it feels the most ambitious and has some really thoughtful moments. Also has my favourite music.
Same here.
They were actually exploring an 'unknown' which was Roddenberry's original vision for Star Trek. I like or love most of the other films but they kind of got away from that idea.
I feel the same. Great and underrated movie.
Same. One of my top 10 films of all-time.
Couldn't agree with you more.
One of the biggest challenges the TNG films faced was not just that the first film was released in the same year the series ended, but that with the show getting a proper series finale, their story had essentially been told. A big factor in TOS’ success after it was cancelled was that it had been cut short, so there was the feeling of unfinished business driving everything.
Halfway through your review you hit on a point I have championed for decades. You phrase it as, "The TOS cast is simply more charismatic." I phrase it differently: "The TOS characters are simply better defined." Yes, I love TNG, but with the exception of Picard, Data, Worf -- and to some extent Troi -- how the characters think, speak, act and react on that series was always less defined than on TOS. Drop Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty into any situation and it's easy for even a novice screenwriter to fashion a plausible scene for them. You could remove the character slugs from the screenplay and know immediately which character was saying what. Could you do the same with Picard, Riker, Crusher and LaForge? Not so easily. That, IMHO, remains the enduring strength of TOS. (And which is why it's been parodied for more often than TNG!)
Quite ironic that we know the TOS characters so much better than the TNG characters yet they had far fewer episodes.
I think it's helped but TOS having always been the Kirk/Spock/McCoy show, so the movies just felt like a more accurate portrayal of how the show was. TNG episodes made more use of the whole cast, so the more narrow focus of the movies made them feel like a different thing.
I'd also like to add that the TOS trio were more archetypal than the TNG cast, and therefore, you could argue, more universal and malleable to the plot. Put in somewhat simplified terms; Spock is logic, McCoy is passion, and Kirk is the ideal balance between the two (i.e. the captain/leader). This works so well for both drama and levity, and is one of the reasons why the characters has endured for so long. The TNG characters are in many ways much more nuanced and arguably realistic, but this does ironically also make them somewhat (for lack of a batter word) dull. As pointed out in the video, this works well over several seasons, but not so much when they're all crammed into a single movie.
To quote Wayne Campbell in "Wayne's World", "It's much like Star Trek: The Next Generation. While in many ways it is superior, it will never be as recognized as the original".
@@docsavage8640 On the flip-side fewer episodes also means less time for character-inconsistencies. I have the feeling the TOS-characters were either written more consistently or there was a firmer control on what writers were allowed to do with the characters to serve the story. In TNG we have Picard telling Wesley "The first duty of starfleet-officer is to the truth" (The First duty) but also admonishing him for telling the truth ("Journey's End"). While neither is out of character for Picard, they don't mix well especially because he is angry at Wesley in both scenes meaning he passionately disagrees with Wesleys behaviour in both instances.
As you said, the TNG-movies often felt more like a two-part episode than a movie.
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
One thing I notice Dave is with the TOS films there is an aura of hopeful excitement of the future everytime I watch one. Especially ST:TMP and Wrath of Khan. TNG films do feel like big budget 2 hour tv movies. I never get that awe of seeing the future with TNG.
I agree with everything you said, but I also wish to add that while TNG season 7 wasn't bad, it was clear that the team was running out of ideas. This was the same team that then tried to make movies. Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer, the men who shaped the TOS movies were not involved with the production of the TV show and had fresh ideas.
I do prefer the TOS films , but I also prefer TOS over TNG
Totally agree with the analysis. Final Frontier, Insurrection, and Nemesis are the weaker films, but are giants compared to the JJ Abrams films.
TOS dynamic of Kirk Spock and Mcoy worked exceptionally well, Spocks logic clashing with Mcoys heart and Kirk in the middle, along with philosophically deep concepts, whereas TNG are primarily Picard with a crew following him and few deep philosophical moments and instead gimmicky episode of the week type stories.
In TNG it was Data who asked the philosophical questions based on logic and Picard who answered (sometimes that there was no easy answer) - different mechanic, but the core was still there. On DS9 it was Sisco, Kira and Bashir (and later Worf) approaching problem from different perspectives. Early Voyager lacked those debates until 7of9 came aboard and thats why that character made the later seasons so much better.
@@gildor8866 Yeah true, I suppose TOS trio did it best and most naturally. Hard to say how much of that was down to the writing or the acting. Specifically about the TNG films I just think they are missing that central philosophical core that the first films had.
As you said, Picard is a diplomat not an action hero. Imagine how good the TNG movies _could_ have been if they leaned into that more. Have Worf and Riker do all the action stuff needed to _get_ Picard to the place where he needs to be to save the day diplomatically, like stopping a war or convincing the faction leaders not to use some kind of doomsday weapon, etc. or even just using logic to confound a deranged computer with a riddle or puzzle, _anything_ intellectual rather than physical. Hell, he's supposed to be the captain! Have him give commands to all the other crew members in a way that makes use of their various talents to save the day with some elaborate plan. You know, like they used to do in the TV show. Then the movies would have been incredible.
"He tasks me, he tasks me and i shall have him. From the moons Nebir, round the Antares Maelstrom BEFORE I GIVE HIM UP!". Also," Khan, Im laughing at the Superior intellect." "We have Genesis, Enterprise isnt going anywhere." "FULL POWER DAMN YOU!!". Those are the qoutes i'll remember most from Wrath of Khan. I love the TOS movies, Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country are my favorites.
" you've managed to kill just about everyone else, but like a poor marksman you keep missing the target!"
"Yesterday Enterprise" is the glimpse to how a true TNG films could have been. Nothing of the nonsense of Picard action hero and cheesy plot lines. I wish they would have given the control to John McTiernan and do a Red October in space for instance. Or Brian De Palma and do a MI 1 in space.
There is a missing for a true military thriller in space. Insead we got the same shinzan bad guy plot over and over again.
"Best of Both Worlds" is even better than "First Contact."
Agreed on both points, although Yesterday's Enterprise would be more accessible to a general audience. It's a great story.
@@FunPicard I like yesterday's Enterprise, but the story revolves around a first season character who died "a meaningless death." This makes a more of an insider, regular viewer story.
For me, the biggest failing on Generations was Kirk and Picard's meeting in the matrix.
Picard: Come back with me
Kirk: No
Picard: yes
Kirk: no
Picard: yes
Kirk: oh alright then
I felt at the time that that entire sequence was awful and my opinion hasn't changed.
I do agree that the first 10 minutes was phenomenal. When that bottle of champagne came into view... I will never forget that moment as I sat there in the cinema.
With the fanfare of the meeting of the two great captains, something a bit more than breakfast and horseback riding seemed in order too.
5 has McCoy facing his 'pain', the loss of his father. Deforest Kelley was superb in that scene. Reduces me to a wreck everytime i watch it. 😢
I love the TOS movies because they felt bigger than the series. The movie was essentially a reboot in a way with the TOS crew.
TNG needed a bit of a reboot to disconnect from its series. It also needed a longer time break between the series end and movie.
Anyway, I love the Genesis Trilogy and the continuation of the story between those film with vastly different scenarios and settings within . The world building that those three films did is the reason why the subsequent shows had much to draw upon.
Anyway, great video Dave. Cheers! 🖖😎👍
Just rewatched TOS movies.. I still think to this day, the story connection between II and III is perhaps one of the most unique and impactful ones I've ever seen in a "set" of movies. Additionally, when it comes to the TNG movies... for some reason, Generations ... holds a really high spot on my list, I love almost everything about that movie.
TNG movies had the same production quality as the TV series, so TOS had an edge with the storytelling and the characters... Good analysis, Patrick Stewart really screwed a few things up
Patrick further screwed things up in the awful Picard series, recently. That man needs to learn his place & shut up.
@@VerneditheSnail Do not look up his politics, you will wonder how someone could sound so stupid speaking through the voice of Picard.
Patrick Stewart wanted Picard to be Patrick Stewart when Picard should have just been Picard.
He took instruction well, but then was too trusted to take care of himself, and fly fleetly from the nest
I have always considered Patrick Stewart a ham actor, going as far back as, "I Claudius". Stewart loves to believe in his own act. It took a few years, but it finally came out how Stewart has treated fans as well, depending on who they were.
I've always liked the character Picard. I've never cared for the ham actor Patrick Stewart.
The original crew win easily ..my favourites are The Motion Picture and The Voyage home..
Just watched Star Trek 4 again the other night. On this watch I was impressed how they gave all the cast some screen time, and it never felt like the plot was put on hold to do so. It shows how good a script it is.
TNG cast were great actors but TOS cast, especially the big 3 really felt like epic heroes in their autumn years. I've always felt DeForest Kelley was especially good in the films. He had great understated intensity.
I do think one of the main reasons is that the TOS films, with the exception of the Motion Picture, all deal with subject matter that had never been done in Star Trek before. A full scale naval battle with a former rival of Kirk had never been done in Star Trek. Kirk trying to find the body of his dead friend and put his spirit to rest had never been done before. Time travelling to find an extinct species of whales to save the future had never been done before. Literally searching for God with a crazy Vulcan in command had never been done before. Conversely, all the TNG films were all about subject matter that had already been done before, sometimes multiple times both in the TOS films and the TNG show. Insurrection is literally the plot of two pre-existing TNG episodes with a few different details changed around. Nemesis is essentially a slightly different spin on a Mirror Universe episode, which had been done in a whopping six episodes by that point. First Contact on the surface has the same plot outline of over a dozen Star Trek episodes. I know that newness and novelty do not exactly result in quality, but I do think it plays a part into why the TNG movies just don't have the same energy as the TOS films.
Other than Picard and Data, the NextGen characters are dull as dirt, whereas the TOS cast are legendary and have wonderful chemistry together.
I disagree. While I prefer DS9 over TNG, I do like all of the TNG characters aside from Crusher (I preferred Pulaski). While they aren't bigger than life like TOS, I think that's more because the pioneers and trailblazers are often held higher than those who follow.
Honestly I think the best characters from TNG are Picard, Worf, Data and Riker. The two ladies were just ok whereas the two ladies from TOS are amazing.
And I also prefer DS9 over TNG but not over TOS.
Keep in mind this is TNG Picard, not the Picard Picard.
Yeah, I'm of the same mind. TOS came out at just the right time, the late 70's and 80s when big budget sci-fi and adventure films were really finding their stride, so many (Blade Runner, Close Encounters, Return of The Jedi, Terminator, Aliens) and Star Trek fit right in.
TNG came onboard in the 90s, a more cynical sardonic era where horror and snark action cheese were the dominant pictures. Not to mention it was just TNG: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.
I assume you're referring to the movies and not the series. When TOS came out, in the 60s, was well before the unexpected success of Star Wars made science-fiction widely acceptable. Before that, science-fiction was considered to be childish comic-book stuff. People forget just how much the general public used to look down on things like Star Trek - And the widespread contempt that fans had to ignore....
@@_XR40_ Yes I meant original movies, good for clarity. Star Trek was a partial inspiration to George Lucas along with Flash Gordon. The Star Wars Trilogy then helped Star Trek have an easier time getting to the big screen.
I was fortunate to have parents that were STOS fans. my dad actually took me to see ST: The Motion Picture at the theater. going to the movies was a luxury my parents could hardly afford. so going meant a lot more to me than simply seeing a movie with dad. my mom was enough of a fan to name my youngest brother after a STOS character. Shaun Geoffrey. they went with the American spelling of Shawn Jeffrey. a character that was never on screen. in Tomorrow is Yesterday the air force captain they transport onto the enterprise had to be returned to earth because of the importance that his future son (colonel Shaun Geoffrey Christopher.) plays in future history. thanks for reading this ridiculous mess about my life. God bless ya of you read till the end.
With no ill-will, and not be obnoxious, but _Sean_ is an Irish name - And it is spelled S-e-a-n. I really have no idea where these weird modern variants came from...
Dave, I think this was your best video yet and was very thought provoking. It made me reflect on my true feelings of Star Trek over the past 30+ years and I think you are spot on. I don’t think the TNG films really worked and the Generations movie did far more damage than we think to the franchise going forward, after that I never felt as comfortable with TNG particuarly with Picard as an action hero. I think blowing up the ENT D symbolised so much, only compounded with how Kirk was treated. I am not sure deep down I was happy with TNG after ‘All Good Things’, right through till 2023. Thank you for making me feel it wasn’t ‘just me’.
Live Long And Prosper Dave!! 🖖
I think you're right for the most part on TNG being on the heels of a 7-year successful show as opposed to the TOS films, which EASILY out spectacled the TV show which spawned them. (TNG wasn't so easy to out spectacle on the big screen.) TNG also had the benefit of the Star Trek name pre-established to carry it through its rocky first two seasons. Although the TNG films were well made and certainly watchable, they 'played it safe' for the most part, delivering moves the producers KNEW would please fans; whereas ST II & III took major chances with the death of Spock and the destruction of the original Enterprise respectively.
Ultimately, I feel Trek belongs on the small screen, yet the TOS movie era will always be my favorite era in all of Trek.
I tend to agree with everything Dave has to say here. The odd think about TOS is that it has this mythology surrounding its original run saying that the audience ratings just weren't there which is why it got cancelled. This is actually not true. There are several books out there telling its story from files, letters and first hand accounts from producers, directors and showrunners of TOS that tell us it was beating out way more successful shows at the time. However it was very expensive to make and after the studio shook things up for the last season, pretty much torpedoing the show, and the audience ratings sank a little due to the terrible writing the studio had an excuse to can it. Even though another letter writing campaign was launched to bring it back this time the studio ignored the fans and let TOS die.
There was also the sale of DesiLou to Paramount that last year.
Unfortunately, demographics hadn't come into play during TOS' initial run. Had they realized that Star Trek appealed to the very audience, predominantly 18-45 males with expendable income, that sponsors wanted to sell to, it would have been considered a runaway hit.
Might also help to keep in mind that the NBC executives had nothing but contempt for the show and felt that it hurt the _prestige_ of the network. Remember this was well before the unexpected success of _Star Wars_ made science-fiction widely acceptable. Before that, science-fiction was considered to be childish comic-book stuff. People forget just how much the general public used to look down on things like Star Trek, Batman, etc....
@@_XR40_ You mentioned that "science-fiction was considered to be childish comic-book stuff" for networks and the general public at the time, but what about *_The Twilight Zone_* ? I would have thought the success of that show would have changed everyone's perspective on science-fiction, especially the networks...
@@CrimsonID4 _Twilight Zone_ was more "fantasy" or allegory. I should have been more specific and used a term like "Space Opera". It was running around exploring and adventuring with spaceships that was considered childish. The term was "that Buck Rogers stuff". It was a genre thing - Thus _Star Trek_ would be viewed more like a Saturday-morning kid's show, while _Twilight Zone_ would be seen as social commentary...
Time was the biggest issue as you mentioned. Growing up during that time I remember Star Trek overload in the mid 90’s. TOS, TNG, DS9 then Voyager all on TV at one point or another. I had all the TOS films on VHS in a special box set and remember watching 4 the most since it took place in the Bay Area of California where I was raised so there was a special connection, I went to the aquarium featured in the film countless times. Sadly something changed around the time insurrection was released, I got burnt out. I skipped it and skipped nemesis, I skipped half of DS9 and most of Voyager. With literally thousands of hours of trek available it just wasn’t special anymore, not unlike what happened to Star Wars recently.
"Damn you, sir. You WILL try." - Spock, ST:V
I hear Spock whenever I'm low, unmotivated, hopeless, etc.
Spock finally got the hang of colourful metaphors!
The Next Gen films were often missed opportunities ... Yes, they had a big Borg movie ... But they never included Q, or any of the other more epic enemies they could have brought back.
They felt too safe ... but I still love them for different reasons.
While I agree that there were missed opportunities, what on earth could you make a movie with Q about? I hate the character partially because I find him annoying but also because it feels too much like a writer actively controlling what happens. Unlike with an actual deity character, which might have some kind of restrictions, either self-imposed (monotheistic deities), being in conflict with another deity (polytheistic deities), or just being lacking in power (usually polytheistic deities if the situation falls outside of their specialty), Q can simply do almost anything on a whim. How do you write around that?
Yeah, I have to agree with you that the producers missed an opportunity when not revisiting some of the other villainous characters established in the TV series. The biggest miss, I think, was not going with Q in a movie. It seemed to me that when Q said, "See you out there! " at the end of All Good Things, they were hinting at Q showing up in a movie. There was no question at the time that Paramount was going to make TNG movies after such a successful series.
Brilliant observations. I think you nailed it perfectly. TNG should have waited at least 5 years before reuniting for a feature film. We didn’t have time to miss it. With TOS we were starving for more Star Trek.
When we consider that all Sci Fi these days has GIANT CONSEQUENCES baked in, it only makes me fonder of Insurrection. It’s more Trek than a lot of the things before it and all of the Trek after it. The villain is top tier in rhyme, reason and execution too.
First Contact I think benefits the most from “action Picard” because in that storyline it made the most sense. He was still dealing with his emotions over the Borg, he was angry & out for revenge… thus grabbing a phaser & going at it was true to that. He wanted to hurt them like they hurt him.
I myself thought this paralleled nicely with how Picard S3 panned out because there he went back to beating the Borg in a way that was ultimately true to himself. He beat them using his heart & mind by pulling Jack back from the brink. He’d found himself again. I felt like it closed the arc on his life with the Borg quite nicely.
I agree with almost everything you say here. I think that we will never see another truly good Star Trek film get made and that makes me sad.
13 Star Trek films? 13? *mentally lists off movies*. um, I'm only counting 10
I make it eight (I-VI, First Contact, Galaxy Quest). Everything else was made-for-tv movies.
You beat me to it.
Shattner was just so damn good as a lead actor
My big thing is the TOS films (warts and all) felt like logical continuations of the show.
The TNG films (and I really like First Contact) by contrast felt like the needed to twist the characters far more to make their plots work.
Original Star Trek was the only television show canceled at the height of its popularity.
It's also the only one that cost that much and produced by a guy the network hated so....
Actually the ratings were low, it was going to be cancelled after two seasons, but a fan letter-writing campaign led to a third season, but ratings were still low so it was cancelled after that.
TNG is the one that was cancelled at the height of its popularity. It never had low ratings like DS9 and Voyager.
It was hard to get sponsors who were trying to target a given customer base.
Advertisers want to hit likely buyers for what they're selling based on the 80-20 rule. That's why you see beer ads during football games, makeup ads during daytime talk shows, or toys during kiddie shows.
Trek viewers were a bit more generalized and, therefore, not seen as cost-effective to advertisers.
They gave it that bad time slot (3rd season) to KILL it. As a kid, I couldn't watch season 3 because it was past my bedtime.
Firefly, anyone?
@@masere TNG didn't get cancelled... It just ran it's course, and there were other productions just getting underway like DS9, and Voyager which debuted a year after...
The argument I heard was that because the original series was fairly static with it's characters, the movies were able to explore them as people a lot better since they were no longer under the writing constraints of episodic television. Because their relationships were more static also meant that the heartfelt moments of the films felt more profound, or at least believable.
The TNG movies however suffer from the problem that the characters have pretty much already all have their arcs. There's really nothing new they could do with them. There's also the fact that because the ensemble cast was much bigger, the films being pretty much just Picard & Data Show feels like a _reduction_ in terms of characterization from the TV series, whereas with TOS it was the opposite.
I think Dave touched on it a bit, but what made the TOS films stand out more I think was that for the majority of their run, it was the only Star Trek game in town. TNG films were being released during a time when you had two tv series still running. From 79 to 86, it was just TOS re-runs and then a new movie every 2-3 years. There was just stronger and greater demand for the product.
Fortunately, they were good too. With TNG on the air by the time of ST:5, it seemed that they felt that they had room to tone down the quality.
The TOS films show a lot of growth in the characters and time has passed. WOK “catches up” and takes place 13 years after TMP where they did another five year mission and the Enterprise is a training vessel. It allowed for growth even if some of the cast stuck around as teachers. TNG other than Worf and Riker/Troi/Crusher at then end of Nemesis, they’re all chilling on the Enterprise-E.
I think a few of the Trek movies are judged far too harshly. They are all decent movies in their own right. But none more so than Nemesis, I never quite understood the amount of hate that movie got. I watch it fairly regularly and always enjoy it.
thank you for your videos, always a pleasure.
ST: Generations is actually a really good film it just has the stink on it of being the movie that killed Captain Kirk. There is no washing away that stink. YOU DON'T KILL CAPTAIN KIRK!
Personally I grew to love the way Kirk died. It was long established he’d die alone, and having him die on a remote planet for a “pre-warp civilization” he or the audience never sees is VERY classic Trek philosophy.
If Kirk needed to die should have been steering the enterprise- as last man on board- into a black hole saving the crew.
Even then you're not sure....
They killed Kirk and Enterprise-D in unnecessary and lackluster ways.
Kirk should have been on the enterprise D blasting Nursa and Betor! Literally and figuratively.
To me, Generations was the most inconsistent movie. If everything that happens in the Nexus isn't real, then that would mean when they go back in time in the Nexus to stop Soran, none of that actually happened and they're still somewhere in the Nexus to this day.
I always enjoy a Star Trek movie. Even the average ones are still a lot of fun. And when they are great like 2, 3, 4, 6 and First Contact the films are absolute classics!
I've always felt that Patrick Stewart's ego wouldn't allow the films to be about anything other than his character, forcing the films writers to essentially make a non TNG film.
Great insights! For me it comes down to the dynamic between the actors ultimately. My favorite thing about original star trek is watching the interactions between them all. For whatever reason it just works. I would happily watch them running a post office together and in 45 years time I would still want to watch. Much less so with the Tng actors. it worked in its own way but honestly you could recast almost any of them and i think it could trundle on. Much less so with the Tos.
There is also something about the overall vibe of the TOS show that is far more appealing then Tng. If i was stuck on the enterprise with the tng crew I think i would be looking for the nearest airlock within an hour. The tos ship you couldnt pay me to get off of it!
You're dead right about Picard. Goes 7 seasons being the antithesis of Kirk then suddenly becomes Jean Rambo in the movies
My husband showed me all the Star Trek films (all those prior to 2009, anyway) and I really enjoyed the ones with Kirk, Spock, et al. When it came to TNG, my feeling was “Data? AGAIN?”
Yes, we know. He’s an android with humanity. We get it. Move along, please.
Sorry - I didn’t really grow up watching TNG and when I have seen any of it, it feels like they’re just angsting over Data’s identity crisis yet again. After a while, you start to wonder if they knew how to do anything else in this show/franchise. While I enjoyed Picard Season 3, you can guess what was my least favorite part of the show.
TOS focused on Kirk, Spock, & McCoy. So it was easy to transition to movies. TNG gave everyone a lot of screen time so when it came to those movies fans of characters besides Picard and Data were inevitably going to be disappointed.
I'm not sure if this will make sense, but to me, it felt like TNG was more... corporate? TOS felt like space exploration was brand-new, like the Wild West of space. TNG felt like it was much more mature, someone else said it felt kind of like a conference at a Mariot hotel in space. Picard and crew were very "by the book", whereas Kirk was blazing a trail and got in over his head more than a few times. TOS was "boldly going where no man had gone before", TNG was "casually traveling to diplomatic meetings and exploring interpersonal relationships". I loved TNG, but in a different way from TOS. The Borg episodes were the most TOS-like to me in tone.
TNG films didn't stick to what made it so strong a TV show, their films should have been closer to the likes of TMP. I know Patrick Stewart wanted to be "action hero" but look at Kirk in his film outings. He had one big fight at the end of Search for Spock, and only throws a few punches in 5 & 6, hardly the stuff of big action heroes, it was appropriately restrained. TOS films were also made under the very real pressure that if they got it wrong, that would be the end of the films. Nicholas Meyer got it spot on with him saying: "art thrives on restrictions" being forced to be creative to get around budget/logistical problems, was ultimately to the benefit of the material, something else TNG films didn't really need to contend with. Generations even bucked the trend, they got handed more money to re-film the ending and top up the effects after the studio said they were "happy" with the bulk of the other material.
I still think that Wrath of Khan created a core emotional moment for the audience and the characters. Like a magical first date where you fall in love. WoK set a lot of things in motion that could give deeper meaning to later ST movies. TNG just lacked their version of such a movie.
The biggest complaint, I remember, for Star Trek generations is that it was a missed opportunity to have all the cast from the original series in the movie. I agree but I still love that movie.
I think the best TNG film was First Contact; the scene about Moby Dick , and the “I envy you” lines were excellent! Those grab me best, like, in a nostalgic way
Star Trek Generations will probably always be my favorite theatergoing experience: my dad got us sneak preview tickets, so it was me, him, and all the Trekkers in my city. They laughed, clapped, and cheered in all the right places, and I thought Data was hilarious, and the Nexus and Malcolm McDowell were interesting, and Riker saying “Fire” and waiting as the photon torpedo found its way to Lursa and B’Etor’s ship was awesome and triumphant.
I always wanted them to cover the Alien Ship Tin Man in one of the movies.
That or a Mirror Universe Movie Entry, the possibilities are endless.
There should've at least been a follow up episode for Tin Man huh, that is one of my fave episodes actually. It was written by a fan though and sent in (back when they used to allow that, Ronald D Moore was one such fan writer that was later hired, he didn't write Tin Man mind), they probably didn't want to pay him residuals.
I personally love all of the TNG movies and now really do appreciate their "long episode" like story telling. I can certainly see and understand criticisms of the films but one point you brought up made me realize something. You mentioned the TNG films lacked impact of the original series movies and I think that entirely boils down to when they were made. TNG films were made while concurrent TV shows were on going, in a time before the MCU writers and producers probably didn't want the movies to "upset the apple cart" sort of speak as any large changes to the universe would impact the shows and they probably didn't want to expect TV Show watchers to go see the movies or make it mandatory viewing. Therefore the TNG movies are self-contained episodic movies with the only kind of exception being First Contact but the Defiant and Worf from Deep Space 9 appear as you would expect, and then its a timey wimey movies so as soon as the Borg are dealt with it all just works out so no big changes.
Meanwhile the OS movies have no such restrictions, in fact if anything they were expected to expand the universe. Nearly every outing was a change for the scene as a whole culminating in the biggest change which was the Kitimer accords, transforming Klingon enemies into allies. Such a change would never have happened in the TNG movies. They tried with the Romulans saying they were interested in talking at the end but then they completely ruin that setup by never going back to that timeframe and then BLOWING UP ROMULUS.
Anyway, Generations is probably the prettiest one to watch, the lighting in some of the scenes is just inspired, First Contact is well First Contact, Insurrection is a fun romp with your favorite characters juiced up on some teenage angst, and Nemesis is a dark look at character and how life shapes you with a god damn awesome space battle at the end that puts anything modern trek has done to absolute shame.
Star Trek is the perfect example of 'if you start with a good script, you will get a good film'
The motionless picture, was being written while they were shooting, and it shows
Star Trek 5, a problem with the third act "we will fix it later" and they did not
Generations, we must force the old cast and the new cast together
Nemesis, the director was an editor, not a director, did not know Star Trek
Good stuff Dave...the whale one by far my favourite and the crossover one generations a close second.
Picard leading the resistance against the Borg on the Enterprise in First Contact I think was a good choice for the character. That was THE time where it felt appropriate for Picard to abandon the diplomat and take up a phaser. But in the other three films it feels so out of place.
Dave, I feel Nemesis could've focused on the aftermath of the Dominion War, and looking back at the deaths of so many people.
The film could've opened with a flashback action sequence, showing the Enterprise E battling a Dominion fleet. Then it cuts to a couple years later, where, instead of Riker and Troi's wedding, we see Picard speaking at a starfleet ceremony in San Francisco, honouring all those federation officers who lost their lives.
We could've seen a DS9 characters in attendance, such as Miles O'Brien, Julian Bashir, Nog and, of course, Worf.
Heck, we could've seen Admiral Ross give a speech too.
I actually really like Insurrection. It's light, adventurous and some excellent humour 😁
It actually feels like a big budget TNG episode for that reason. For once the Earth is not at stake, just the values of the Federation.
TOS films just look better ! Yes as you say they look 70s. But there’s something really good looking about the old style masks and physical model work.
It all just generally looked more real and lived-in. I think it had to do with the necessity of practical effects and that's just how they built the sets.
TOS movies were anticipated events. TNG movies were just movies.
I think people tend to think of Captain Kirk as a fist-throwing lothario a bit too much. Yes, he was a "man of action," but not without thought going before action, and, yes, he had a romance here and there, but not so much as people falsely remember. So when Kirk and Picard meet in "Generations" and Kirk says, "I was saving the galaxy when you were in diapers (or whatever the line was), I rolled my eyes, because I didn't believe that was something he would ever say, and I didn't believe that was someone Picard could look up to. I could go on, but you hit the major beats. Another great video.
Quite true. Kirk was definitely capable of action when needed, but he was also always diplomatic when possible, reflective and never irresponsible - His duty and obligations were _always_ his primary motivations. The problem is that he was an "Alpha-male" and that has gone out of fashion - Thus he is portrayed in a derogatory manner (see JJ Abrams)
First Contract is, to me, the perfect blend of action and thoughtfulness from Cpt Picard. Though the action focus only work because it's against the Borg, who he has a true motivation to hate. He's even compared to Captain Ahab at one point, and the concept really gets the better of him because he understands the gravity of the comparison.
I like the first Star Trek movie the most, it has a certain 2001: a space odyssey vibe. The bald woman and "Veeja" creeped me out as a kid.
Vyger. Gotta remeber is what a damaged Voyager. Totally agree that the first was excellent, same for the second and fourth outings.
V'Ger looked amazing. But then it was a Syd Mead design.
Not my favorite, but I always liked it. With an in-canon jump of about 14 years between the original show and The Wrath of Khan, I think of it as a missing years type of story.
The reason why TOS era movies were better?
Two names:
Harve Bennett
Nicholas Meyer
William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy should be on that list as well…not counting Trek 5 of course. Nimoy more so because of the lengths he went to protect Trek and demand a solid script. Shatner brought his A game when playing Kirk and took him to a new level.
Generations would have been fine if they had just given Kirk better scenes and not killed him... Send him back, or send him a few year into his future, so that people mourned him, and there would be possibility of another TOS sequel-- Finding Kirk.
I would prefer Soran attain his goal and have Kirk get to the Nexus leaving the door open to new Kirk stories.
One time when the whole family was watching some TNG, my grandma says "The one with the most personality is the robot!" 😂
My mother, who absolutely loved the original series, was not a fan of TNG.
However she really liked Data.
The ToS movies tackled really BIG issues... The Motion Picture tackles humanity, transcendence, and meaning. Wrath of Khan tackled regrets, mistakes that come back to haunt us, aging, and death. The Search for Spock dealt with friendship, religion, and life after death. The Voyage Home dealt with environmental disaster, healing the planet, and the question of the origin of life. Even ST-5, dealt with the problem of pain. And The Undiscovered Country dealt with Peace and war.
In contrast the TNG episodes dealt with smaller-scale issues: Data finally getting his emotion chip to work, Picard's on-going PTSD with the Borg, a complicated issue with Starfleet oppressing an indigenous people, and yet another clone/Romulan saga. Data "dies" but is replaced by "B-4." The Enterprise (D) is destroyed but replaced with an even cooler one (E) in the very next movie. There just are no real "stakes" in the TNG movies. Even without the subsequent ST material, you're left wondering...in an almost Schroedinger's Box fashion...whether Kirk will stay dead or can he come back AGAIN from the Nexus. They're fun enough romps, but they are shallow.
The Wrath of Khan will always be my favorite.
TOS took ten years to get to films because the fans demanded it. The show was #1 in syndication during the 70s, so it generated tremendous support. By contrast, Paramount wanted TNG -- which had little support from fans at the time. Roddenberry came on board when he saw what they planned to and wasn't thrilled. TNG is a great show, maybe the last TV show to have (1) high ratings (2) wide demographic appeal to kids/adults (3) cultural impact (4) extensive merchandising -- not a couple of posters; posters to action figures and games . Movies tend to favor an action/ adventure format --much more suited to TOS than the talky, technobabble filled TNG.
Thanks for the deep dive Cullen. I think where it all went wrong with the films for the Next Generation was the writing of those films. For First Contact the writing with the direction that Frakes had it was very well executed. With Insurrection it was the budget, writing, and Stewart having an impact that. All in all there was some great scenes in each film.
The decision to not have a DS9 film series was the right choice.
This would have been rather difficult as well with Sisko being missing or dead…
The series was wonderfully self-contained.
Maybe one film could of worked, but only one where it's a rescue for Sisko from the fire caves that actually sounds great but my only worry is that they wouldn't stop and milk DS9 until it's dry with it's lore and characters ruined. DS9 was great for knowing when to end I know some people give season 7 shit (to be fair what they did the Ferengi was dumb turning them into a diet Federation and say what you will about Quark and his species, he's not wrong that their culture was basically nuked by Rom and the old Nagus) but at least it knew to end with the Dominion War's finally. With only one last episode afterwards as a send off to the characters, wrapping up loose ends.
Far too much lore to be understood by the casual movie going audience. It simply could never have happened. 😉
I'm really glad they never made a Voyager movie.
i think another possible reason the original series films were generally better, is that the original TV series was the only Trek to be found at the time (the first 4 movies came out before The Next Gen even aired)...this (coupled with the original TV series only having 3 seasons) meant their were a lot more options for stories that could be told (The Next Generation movies had their 7 season of stories, plus Deep Space Nine and Voyager as well)...film-making was also a very different animal in the 90s...
The TNG movies, minus First Contact, really do suffer from creative drain. Voyager was on TV at the time and I'm rewatching the show right now. It suffers from the same problem. The episodes are boring, not because they are bad, but because TOS, TNG, and DS9 already did those story lines. Voyager has episodes that are "Event Television," that are exceptionally good, spread out between episodes that had already been done before.
First Contact succeeded with excellent writing, ambitious plot AND action, memorable villain with well defined motivation... This is the only cinematic TNG era film. Most of the TOS Films (except Star Trek 5) had these cinematic qualities.
If I may Dave I think there’s one other reason you didn’t talk about in your video for why the next gen movies didn’t quite work. You nailed 90% of it but for some reason lately I’ve thought a lot about it. I think a major factor too was there was no through line for the characters in the story. Like you mentioned Picard and data were the main focus of the movies but everyone else just kind of became window dressing. We could’ve seen riker at the end of insurrection decide it’s time for him to step up and take command. We could’ve see Geordi make the decision about his new cybernetic eyes or even Beverly decide that maybe she’s been in space long enough and she wants to go back to earth at starfleet medical. Part of the reason nemesis feels so hollow is because the characters had remained virtually frozen in time since “generations” when it came out. We didn’t see them grow or change really unlike what we saw with the original series casts movies. When the time came for Chekov to set his course we’d seen these amazing people grow so much together. Of course we would’ve loved another adventure but the time was right for their adventures together to conclude. With tng until season 3 of Picard there was no real resolution to anyone’s story arcs except Picard and data in Picard season 1. I do love this video though and I’m glad this cast got the send off they deserve along with their recent lifetime achievement reward. They changed the face of television by showing a franchise doesn’t need to end with its original core group and can grow beyond what anyone could’ve dreamed of.
For me, TNG movies felt like an extended TV episode where the original cast movies really felt amped up.
Thanks Dave, !Well, to start Wrath of Khan is in my top 10 films of all time, so TOS has a huge advantage there. In terms of overall quality of characters and story TOS wins hands down ( again, nothing beat WoK) . I actually enjoy most of Generations ( especially the score, Data's jokes, and I liked Shatner and Stewart together - the riding sequence made a logical setting given both Picard's and Shatner's real life love of horses) but with a little more creativity it could have been a lot better ( Picard's family tragedy was a bit forced although Stewart played it well, he delivers " The family would go on," with believable bitterness. First Contact is easily the best TNG film, Insurrection feels very generic, although the rogue Data sequence was fun. Nemesis manages to squander what should have been the most emotional moment in TNG, Data's sacrifice
I forgot to mention that I felt that Undiscovered Country gave the TOS crew the perfect sendoff, and I liked Kirk's arc overcoming his hatred of Klingons, the Cold War allegory worked IMHO, although probably more for people like me who actually lived through the end of the Real Cold War. Cheers.
Growing up, I used to love TNG, and I loved the TNG movies. These days though I stick to TOS, Patrick Stewart has just totally ruined TNG for me. I can never look at TNG the same way again because of him.
The original crew had charisma and the IT factor. You dont just see Shatner, or Takei, or Walter on the street... you see those characters and you relive those adventures.
I like and respect the TNG crew, but they werent the original batch. Yes they filled in some really big shoes but its not Star Trek without the original crew and the first three versions of the Enterprise. That what set the standard. Everyone elae just follows behind.
The Klingon opening to the first ST movie was great!
TNG has a few 2 part episodes that you could argue were basically movies (Best of Both Worlds) etc
I never felt the excitement level esp from friends anticipating TNG movies
While I don't agree with your issue on the timing of the first TNG film (strike while the iron is hot, and all that), I think you were spot on in many other places. The biggest one, I think, was the feeling that all of the TNG films really do seem like bigger budget, two part, episodes. They had the budgets to make movies, but not the writers. I don't actually dislike any of the movies, but some are certainly better than others.
Great video and great observations, Dave!
I think you've hit a couple of the things that made the difference for the TOS fan. They waited YEARS for their characters to return. Untold numbers of fans died over that span, never seeing their heroes return. The desire was so high that even the relatively weak (though after watching the post 2009 ST films I rate it much higher now than I did before) Motion Picture was a triumph because THEY WERE BACK! I was 11 in '79 but I had seen and loved many of TOS and TOS-A (the animated series) episodes on summer reruns so I was happy that they had returned. Then Wrath came along and the mania spread because of what a strong production that was. We waited and finally they delivered and boy were we happy.
TNG just went too quickly from TV to movie and I think the pace meant that the scripts and the movies suffered. It really did feel like leftover two-part episodes more than cinematic features and while I didn't hate them, they were just kinda meh. I can't remember any of the scenes from TNG movies with the intensity and joy that I remember scenes of the TOS movies. I didn't mind Picard taking more of an action hero role, but instead of being an addition to standard Picard it was more of a replacement of standard Picard and that, like you mentioned, just made it ring false. They could have and should have done better. But maybe the success of the TV show set the bar too high and, along with the additional ST property on the air it was just that it got lost in the clutter? I dunno. But even the TNG films I like I don't like nearly as much as the TOS films I like. And no ST movie I've seen (I've not seen Beyond) can knock Into Darkness out of its position as the worst ST film I've seen.
The plot of the episode "The Chase" should've been saved for a TNG feature film & given the treatment it deserved.
The original show had the trio of Kirk Spock and McCoy..TNG didn't have that..There were too many characters and Roddenberry didn't allow a big three to come forward.
Movies suffer from the people making thinking that all fans want pew pew pew when star trek fans prefer thinking things out. Star Wars fans like the constant action, but Star Trek fans want the thinking way out. My goodness in the series from Original all the way to Voyager. There were times that All the Captains could have destroyed the enemy, yet spared them. They were not fond of killing.
I agree it was a charisma and chemistry issue with the TNG films. I also feel like the plots and writing let them down. Generations has grown on me significantly but none of the TNG films felt as compelling. Probably first contact did the best in that regard but I could never get over the plot hole of sending a single cube. Why did the Borg send a single cube? Because there wouldn’t have been a movie otherwise.
Yeah, that never any sense. The same with "The Best of Both Worlds". Realistically the Borg would have sent a fleet of cubes into Federation space. But of course, if that happened, no more Federation. It's interesting to think now what would have happened if the producers of TNG had decided to be really dark and bold back then. Imagine they had allowed the Federation to be conquered or mostly conquered by the Borg. The rest of the series could have dealt with the Enterprise and other surviving Starfleet vessels trying to survive and figuring out how to eliminate the Borg. They could have gone ahead of Dr. Cusher's suggestion of using nanorobotics to defeat them.
I think you pretty much nailed it.
Inserection and Nemesis have aged better then they would have considering the sh*t show that Nu trek is
Comparing Insurrection to NuTrek is that film's only saving grace. I really tried to like it, but just nothing of note to enjoy.
It doesn't say much for the film when the praise is "See how much worse it could have been."