[horatio]

Picard as well as Kirk make a different decision than Soran. Although they are very happy with their private lives in the Nexus they yearn to do something more important with their lives. This is one of the oldest stories of humankind, Gilgamesh builds a wall around Uruk when he realizes that he cannot become immortal.
You cheat death, you become immortal not via living forever but via doing something great that creates the illusion for you that you live eternally via this great deed.

You can also phrase it differently, Soran is basically already a zombie, he has nothing but the drive to live whereas Picard and Kirk have the desire to fill their lives with something significant.

Sure, all of this is not perfectly done in GEN but you cannot just wipe the ideas away. For a Trek movie it is thematically pretty rich.

[kevin]

U-huh, you've told me this a hundred times. I don't need to be further reminded of your feelings and appreciation on their choices and on Generations itself. I'm not and never did deny it's presence. I just have a different set of feelings about it as a theme and I'm sorry but I don't find it as rich as you do.

Edit -

That's not an attempt to be difficult. It's just different reception to the material. It happens. That's why everybody's most and least favourite Trek films differ. There's a lot of themes you can pick and choose from for content and everyone watching has their preferences about what themes interest them more than others. And that's before you even hit the question of executing your chosen themes in a film etc

[Roysten]

Originally Posted by horatio

This discussion is too mechanical for my taste and reminds me of the nitpicking of the Delta Vega scenes from the last movie. What is it about, what are the themes of this sequences, what does it mean for the characters, how could you describe it in two lines are more important questions for me than the "but why did Gandalf not ask the eagles to take Frodo to Mount Doom?" kind of plot mechanical questions.

The point of Delta Vega is to be a place where Spock and Kirk meet not coincidentally in a slightly surreal atmosphere (I guess the movie would have been better without the NimoySpock & Spock scene to maintain the ghostliness of NimoySpock)
The point of the Nexus is to compare the hedonist who yearns for eternal bliss with the heroes who yearn to do the right thing even if they have to sacrifice their private happiness or their very life.

Of course one can focus on the trees instead of the forest and nitpick Delta Vega or the Nexus or whatever to death but I fail to see the merit of that.

In principal I agree with what you're saying Horatio and a lot of plot holes and errors don't matter and needn't be complained about, but for me Gen was a bit of a stretch to fully enjoy without sort of frowning as you watch it feeling they missed a few things. Whether or not making such changes would have enhanced the film no one can know of course but I'd have liked to have seen them.

You can also phrase it differently, Soran is basically already a zombie, he has nothing but the drive to live whereas Picard and Kirk have the desire to fill their lives with something significant.

That's a nice idea, hadn't thought about it that way before.

U-huh, you've told me this a hundred times. I don't need to be further reminded of your feelings and appreciation on their choices and on Generations itself. I'm not and never did deny it's presence. I just have a different set of feelings about it as a theme and I'm sorry but I don't find it as rich as you do.

There's a lot to like in Gen, I don't see it as a bad film, but it was certainly missing something IMO.

[horatio]

I think GEN fails in many ways, it is more of an overblown episode than a real movie, the sharp lighting of the ENT interior is not well done, music and cinematography are pretty underwhelming.
I also totally agree that it does hurt the movie when a chemical rockets hits the sun in a few seconds or when you ask yourself why Kirk and Picard have no chosen an earlier moment to get out of the Nexus and stop Soran. But when some contrived nonsense serves a point, in these instances to speed up the moment between rocket launch and hit respectively to simply get Picard, Kirk, Soran and paradise somehow together via a sci-if-ish gizmo, it is, at least in my opinion, excused. I view it as lesser evil than bad dialogue, bad ideas, bad acting and thematic voids.

I would phrase the plot hole thing slightly differently, in my opinion the problem is that GEN feels a bit clustered. The subplots with Data and the Duras sisters do not really harmonize well with the already unharmonious Nexus thingy.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Roysten

There's a lot to like in Gen, I don't see it as a bad film, but it was certainly missing something IMO.

Ah, that could be where we differ! After 18 years, I don't think I could call it a good film.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

I view it as lesser evil than bad dialogue, bad ideas, bad acting and thematic voids.

And this is what I was getting at above, and this is where the wonderful fan Tango never ends but just goes round and round. Because for me GEN has at least three of those things itself, and while the presence of the fourth is one thing, a theme of less interest may as well be a void. But then different reception means not everyone would agree with me. As it should be.

[horatio]

A pretty extreme opinion of a movie, that it failed in every respect. What acting was bad in GEN? To me it seemed like in TNG with McDowell acting well as usual and the Duras sisters being worse than in the series.

To continue the more general discussion, I am fairly unmusical and more of a cognitive guy so I naturally care more about ideas and themes than cinematography, music and emotional overload. Hence my appreciation for movies like GEN and dry, idea-focused moviemakers like Nolan and dislike of bombastic and emotional moviemakers like Spileberg or Abrams.

[kevin]

Well, I did say I couldn't personally call it a good movie so it shouldn't be that surprising. I thought McDowall was weak (but then I think he later in his own words dismissed the script as ****, implying he didn't put much efffort into his performance), Shatner was............well Shatner I guess and various other aspects that are problematic. Some of which you've even identified yourself.

In respect of the general discussion I generally find that actual moviemakers (whether they be names like Nolan or Spielberg) can usually take their themes and ideas and use the film-makers toolbox and the toys within it such as cinematography, music and the emotions they can stir to aid them and tend not to view them as a hindrance. Given the bombastic musical score of Nolan's films and cinematography he uses he can't not. I think they would recognise the value of them and therefore do not dismiss them as secondary.

[horatio]

To use Nolan and Abrams as examples, sure, they are great moviemakes and this good are various things but I think it is fair to say that Abrams is better at creating a magnificent and harmonious picture whereas Nolan is better at writing and coming up with good ideas.
Let's pick Spielberg's Munich, surely a great and entertaining movie that touches an important subject but it is obvious that Spielberg hasn't actually thought much about the issue. Now compare it with Nolan's Inception and it becomes clear that this movie is rather over-thought and lacks a certain natural flow precisely because of that.

Of course great movies precisely avoid any conflict between let's call it harmony and ideas but great movies are rarely a subject of debate.

[omegaman]

Maybe Nolan could be lured into the realm of Trek in the next incarnation somewhere around 2020 perhaps? I'd like to see what he could do with it.