[Commodore]

Most Star Trek movies can be broken down into a standard formula:

1. A crisis develops in space.

2. The Enterprise is called in.

3. There's a confrontation between the captain and the main villain.

4. There's a big bombad fight.

5. The villain is defeated and our heroes move on to the next adventure.

How many Trek movies--both TOS and TNG--have pretty much followed this formula? Or perhaps the more important question is how many haven't?

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by Commodore

Most Star Trek movies can be broken down into a standard formula:

1. A crisis develops in space.

2. The Enterprise is called in.

3. There's a confrontation between the captain and the main villain.

4. There's a big bombad fight.

5. The villain is defeated and our heroes move on to the next adventure.

How many Trek movies--both TOS and TNG--have pretty much followed this formula? Or perhaps the more important question is how many haven't?

Very true....

[kevin]

I have a feeling that Insurrectio also suffered heavily in the editing room. I remember at the time reading about filmed scenes between Troi and Riker that never appeared, the Picard-Anij relationship also and I'm sure the battle between E and the Sona had half of that left out as well. I never feel like I'm watching the full film just the 'edited for TV version'.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Commodore

Most Star Trek movies can be broken down into a standard formula:

1. A crisis develops in space.

2. The Enterprise is called in.

3. There's a confrontation between the captain and the main villain.

4. There's a big bombad fight.

5. The villain is defeated and our heroes move on to the next adventure.

How many Trek movies--both TOS and TNG--have pretty much followed this formula? Or perhaps the more important question is how many haven't?

Well, 1 and 4 had two large probes, 5 had only a pseudo-God, 6 had a conspiracy, the only real villains were Khan and Kruge, whereas Next Gen needed a ruthless villain in each movie. Wonder if this contributes in any way to the movie quality.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

Well, 1 and 4 had two large probes, 5 had only a pseudo-God, 6 had a conspiracy, the only real villains were Khan and Kruge, whereas Next Gen needed a ruthless villain in each movie. Wonder if this contributes in any way to the movie quality.

I would say....no. Folks like good guy/bad guy stories. That's what the NG films ultimately provided. Unfortunately, with the exception of Nemesis, you have small screen writers trying to write for the big screen, and you end up with movies (Generations, First Contact, Insurrection) that could've been two hour episodes done on TV. Nemesis is a whole 'nother matter. Big screen writers/director....reused plot....big visual effects....sadly, plotholes you could pilot a Sovereign through. If Insurrection would've had what another poster mentioned was cut out, we might have had a more substantial movie.

Still...bottom line....Star Trek in the next gen era lacks the mass appeal that the original series movies did....and that's why they don't do so well. Even if they're financial successes, they just don't seem to measure up to the first six movies.

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by horatio

Well, 1 and 4 had two large probes, 5 had only a pseudo-God, 6 had a conspiracy, the only real villains were Khan and Kruge...

Don't forget General Chang in 6. In the end, that movie still really followed the formula, but it did throw in the unraveling of a conspiracy while doing so.

...whereas Next Gen needed a ruthless villain in each movie. Wonder if this contributes in any way to the movie quality.

All of the TNG movies for the most part were very well made films, but the problem might be with that TNG might have worked better for the small screen than the big screen.

Another thing to consider might be timing. Roughly ten years had passed between the last episode of TOS and the premiere of TMP. Enough time had passed for Kirk and crew to become cultural icons so there was definitely a demand to see them again--as well as just new live-action Star Trek period. Generations, however, came out the same year TNG ended and there was no sort of "grace period" for people (in particular, the general public) to really miss them. Add to that the splintering of audiences with DS9 and later VOY, the TNG movies was only one of several means for Trek fans to get a new Star Trek fix.

In hindsight, it might not have been wise in the long run to rush forward with TNG movies so quickly. Perhaps if DS9 and VOY hadn't been pumped out so quickly either and a few years had passed since the end of TNG, Picard and his crew might have become as popular with the general public as Kirk and his crew in time, but I don't think that happened. I believe non-Trek fans are kind of familiar with TOS, but probably lumps TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT as all being the same thing.

AVERAGE JOE: I thought they made only two Star Tracks?

[Zardoz]

hmm Star Trek-The Formula!

[Don Farnsworth]

I think that is the general consensus.

[horatio]

Cannot argue with you, martok and Commodore, but I still like all ST movies, but 1, 5 and 10 and FC is definitely a masterpiece for me. A lot hinges on whether you consider GEN to be a TNG or TOS movie, I would say there are 6 movies and 3 movies ... and then GEN in between.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by horatio

Cannot argue with you, martok and Commodore, but I still like all ST movies, but 1, 5 and 10 and FC is definitely a masterpiece for me. A lot hinges on whether you consider GEN to be a TNG or TOS movie, I would say there are 6 movies and 3 movies ... and then GEN in between.

Paramonts stance is that there are 6 TOS films.

So I guess that makes GEN a TNG film.