Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,440
- 45,319
Definitely not, and that one is bad as well.Better than the previous one to it.
Definitely not, and that one is bad as well.
All four of the movies are bad, IMO, just varying degrees of it. None of them capture TNG and translate it successfully to the big screen. First Contact feels the most like a big screen movie, but not much like Star Trek. Insurrection feels the most like Star Trek, but not much like a big screen movie. I prefer the latter, but I really would've preferred if they'd managed to combined the parts that worked about both movies and made a single one. That's the really disappointing thing about their movie run, IMO, that they didn't put it all together even once. At least for every mediocre or bad movie with the original crew, there was a movie in which they did put it all together. We didn't even get one such TNG film.
Patrick Stewart wanted to do more action than he ever did on TNG, so that's how they did his character in the movies (especially the last 3 as Generations he's still mostly acting normal). One of the reasons I have little confidence in this, because he has apparently influenced how his character will be here and his last round of suggestions were terrible.The movies do exist though, and Nemesis is the last canon adventure of the TNG crew no matter what.
Why I want this to somehow manage to be good because they deserve a better canon ending then that ****ty movie.
One major problem with the TNG movies is Picard is constantly way way out of character. He does things or makes decisions he simply would never have done during the run of the TV show.
They also always have trouble figuring out things for the rest of the crew to do, and they keep getting lazier and lazier with reasons for Worf to keep showing up.
Picard in the movies acts nothing like Kirk. Kirk's reputation in popular culture is an outlandish stereotype relative to the actual character. It's how we ended up with that farce in Star Trek 2009 that is nothing like the original character.I suspect that Paramount wanted a stronger leading man to market the movies around and were afraid that non-TNG fans (i.e. casual moviegoers) wouldn't like Picard if he didn't act just like Kirk. It was brilliant of Roddenberry to make Picard a very different kind of captain, but what we got in the movies is the Kirk 2.0 that Paramount probably would've given us in 1987 if Roddenberry had never been involved with TNG. Stewart wanting to do more action may've helped things along a bit and contributed to scenes like the shuttlecraft chase and dune buggy scene, but I feel that we would've gotten out-of-character Picard regardless. After all, look at how most of the other characters (especially Data and Worf) look out of character, as well.
I think that the main problem with the movies is that they're not written well, especially with regards to the characters. It's as if the writers felt that the way to make it so that they didn't feel like episodes was to change the characters from how they acted in the TV series. I ultimately blame them and Paramount for that, even if the actors were complicit in some of the changes. I doubt that Stewart and Spiner envisioned their characters being written so poorly when they asked to be given a little more range.
Picard in the movies acts nothing like Kirk. Kirk's reputation in popular culture is an outlandish stereotype relative to the actual character. It's how we ended up with that farce in Star Trek 2009 that is nothing like the original character.
I suspect that Paramount wanted a stronger leading man to market the movies around and were afraid that non-TNG fans (i.e. casual moviegoers) wouldn't like Picard if he didn't act just like Kirk. It was brilliant of Roddenberry to make Picard a very different kind of captain, but what we got in the movies is the Kirk 2.0 that Paramount probably would've given us in 1987 if Roddenberry had never been involved with TNG. Stewart wanting to do more action may've helped things along a bit and contributed to scenes like the shuttlecraft chase and dune buggy scene, but I feel that we would've gotten out-of-character Picard regardless. After all, look at how most of the other characters (especially Data and Worf) look out of character, as well.
I think that the main problem with the movies is that they're not written well, especially with regards to the characters. It's as if the writers felt that the way to make it so that they didn't feel like episodes was to change the characters from how they acted in the TV series. I ultimately blame them and Paramount for that, even if the actors were complicit in some of the changes. I doubt that Stewart and Spiner envisioned their characters being written so poorly when they asked to be given a little more range.
Nemsis destroyed TNG, or atleast the ability to make more TNG movies or shows.
A) They killed Data, seriously? What the hell were they thinking when they did that. And not only did they kill him, they replaced him with a dues ex machina clone shoe horned in so badly you're likely to generate fusion energy from the pressure.
B) They Destroyed the Romulan Empire for a one time villain. The Romulan Empire was a powerful, immense, rich and terrifying force that was the only other power aside from the Federation to come out of the Dominion Power in a position of strength, I have no idea what they were thinking when they did this. Oh that's right, they weren't.
C) While First Contact was a great movie but it wasn't a true Trek story, and unfortunately it is the reason why we got Nemesis. Insurrection, for as much hate as it got, was a true Trek story and is viewed positively in the eyes of the Trek community. When Insurrection got ho hum reviews from the public at large, the studio went back to the FC formula for Nemesis but went in balls deep, and in the process they sacrificed everything Trek is/was about.
D) THE HOLLYWOOD ACTION FORMULA DOESN'T WORK WITH TREK!!!!!!! FC worked only because people were missing TNG and wanted more Picard and crew. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the hollywood action blockbuster effect was born the same year with ID4, which was released before ST:FC. People were hungry after Id4 for more spectacular action blockbusters, and were willing to look the other way when it came to good story telling and logic. But the Trek community is smart, filled with intellectuals and those with a particular need for stories centered around characters having to deal with moral dilemmas, cultural and racial stigma's, solving scientific quandaries, et cetra. FC was the lone action hollywood blockbuster in the franchise that got away with differing from what the fan base was used to, when Nemesis was released in 2002 the fan base was quite adamant in what it wanted, and another shoot'em up was not it.
Patrick Stewart wanted to do more action than he ever did on TNG, so that's how they did his character in the movies (especially the last 3 as Generations he's still mostly acting normal). One of the reasons I have little confidence in this, because he has apparently influenced how his character will be here and his last round of suggestions were terrible.
I didn't know Stewart wanted a more action-based character. That's a scary thought and another reason to be thankful for Roddenberry's vision. I get the caution over the upcoming series, but my guess is that the strategic, diplomatic, intelligent Picard we love will be given more room to breathe on TV than in a one-off movie. Also, everything takes longer to develop when you're almost 80.I suspect that Paramount wanted a stronger leading man to market the movies around and were afraid that non-TNG fans (i.e. casual moviegoers) wouldn't like Picard if he didn't act just like Kirk. It was brilliant of Roddenberry to make Picard a very different kind of captain, but what we got in the movies is the Kirk 2.0 that Paramount probably would've given us in 1987 if Roddenberry had never been involved with TNG. Stewart wanting to do more action may've helped things along a bit and contributed to scenes like the shuttlecraft chase and dune buggy scene, but I feel that we would've gotten out-of-character Picard regardless. After all, look at how most of the other characters (especially Data and Worf) look out of character, as well.
I think that the main problem with the movies is that they're not written well, especially with regards to the characters. It's as if the writers felt that the way to make it so that they didn't feel like episodes was to change the characters from how they acted in the TV series. I ultimately blame them and Paramount for that, even if the actors were complicit in some of the changes. I doubt that Stewart and Spiner envisioned their characters being written so poorly when they asked to be given a little more range.
Why? He's just a simple tailor.Also, bring back Garak. I don't care how they do it, or why, I just want more Garak.
Premieres January 23.
A bunch of cameo scenes cut between action shots. Can't say I'm excited for this really.