Good ol' TNG | Report this post to moderator
By: Hbasm (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:43:03 on Nov 05, 2007

The movies have never appealed to me, but I have only good memories of Picard in the series. A most sympatic character. An honest man, with a purified soul, diplomatic and well balanced.

Its great when an actor can benefit from the role he is playing, and become a better person. I can only imagine how it influences an actor if he always gets to play the bad guy... I don't know.

Reply

Quote

God-awful = I still paid money to see them every time | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 07:24:44 on Nov 05, 2007

Quote:
Yeah, the only reason TNG, as the most successful Trek show ever, is no longer culturally significant is because the TNG movies were so god-awful. The popularity of TNG easily should have produced 6 or 7 movies, at least.

Yeah, you're right. What First Contact needed to be successful was Shatner as Kirk, battling the Borg queen and ripping his shirt off at the end (wonder who would have the bigger rack, eh?) and Captain Sulu commanding the Excelsior against the Borg cube.. right?

[rolls eyes]

First Contact was awful, eh? Yeah.. but I bet you had a nice fat chubby 11 years ago when your but was in the theater watching it.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

No doubt ... | Report this post to moderator
By: dx31701 (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 09:33:53 on Nov 04, 2007 | (1)

TNG is a true classic of television, second only to TOS in the franchise.

That's not counting the TNG movies, of course, which represent Star Trek at its very weakest, even next to Voyager and Enterprise.

--------

"Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?" - Justice Scalia

Reply

Quote

Somebody Ask Stewart Why They Made Crap TNG Movie | Report this post to moderator
By: simeet (Odo's file, contact) @ 03:32:35 on Nov 04, 2007 | (1)

Yeah, the only reason TNG, as the most successful Trek show ever, is no longer culturally significant is because the TNG movies were so god-awful. The popularity of TNG easily should have produced 6 or 7 movies, at least.

I want to know why Patrick Stewart and the TNG actors, when they had a lot of power, did not demand Paramount produce quality Trek movies. They all loudly complain NOW, Jonathan Frakes Marina Sirtis, and Levar Burton all have lambasted the Trek movies. (Brent Spiner and Stewart not so much, probably since they got all the screen time)

Why did Stewart allow Generations to get made, when Leonard Nimoy even pointed out the script was awful? Nimoy refused to direct Generations unless the script was revised, but Paramount refused to give more time to develop the sciprt, and Nimoy walked away. Most recognize that Generations was rushed and not solid, and the resulting film is inadequate. Yet Patrick Stewart was happy to cash his check.

First Contact was the best TNG film, but it fell short of greatness. It never made sense why the Borg would send ONE cube to battle Earth, and time travel AFTER the battle was lost, allowing the Federation ships to notice. Why did the Federation have so few defenses for Earth? But granted the movie was entertaining, if too action-oriented and dumbed-down.

Insurrection and Nemesis were just piles of turd. Nothing further to add. The box office failures ended the TNG franchise.

The Next Generation was the most successful Trek series, yet the TNG films departed from the cerebral, socially relevant issues and became dumbed-down Picard and Data action hero flicks. There was little to no SCIENCE FICTION elements, little drama, and little to no socially relevant issues raised. Even the characters of TNG felt like they were different from the show.

Someone ask Patrick Stewart why he cashed the checks, but refused to demand Paramount made quality Trek movies, and also ask why Brent Spiner blamed the fans for Nemesis's failure.

Reply

Quote