I’ve always felt like the TOS movies were better than the TOS show, but the TNG show was better than the TNG movies.
My reasoning is: the TOS campiness was great, but the 2-3-4 trilogy especially highlighted the strengths of the cast, and the slightly more militaristic Starfleet actually worked (and don’t even get me started on them red uniforms… Mm). STVI is likely the best political story in the entirety of the TOS canon.
Meanwhile, TNG the show was tackling themes that TOS would have never touched. I suspect it actually may have a lot to do with the fact that the last few TOS movies and the TNG show were made at roughly the same time.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The TOS movies seemed like labors of love. The TNG movies seemed like chasing in on a brand name.
I don’t have specific examples on hand, but I do believe Patrick Stewart had a lot more clout and creative control in the TNG movies, and Stewart seems like he’s got an ego, and doesn’t care about the integrity or legacy of Picard as a character beyond being a vehicle for Stewart to either do the acting he wants, regardless of its appropriateness to TNG, or as an excuse to drive dune buggies around for fun.
1simpletailer@startrek.website 8 months ago
Pretty much. Stewart’s carrier really took off post-tng and he would only come back for the films if they gave him more creative input. Same thing with the Picard Show. Look Patrick Steward is an outstanding actor who has now demonstrated multiple times that he should never EVER be let near a writers room. Its theorized that why we didn’t have a veteran Trek writer for Nemesis, nobody could stand working with Patrick Stewart any more.
There was also a lot of studio interference. That’s why we have Kirk in Generations, because the studio suits didn’t think a Star Trek movie could succeed without Captain Kirk. Suits also wanted each movie to have a Khan-esc villain, which they pretty much failed with every time.