Having a phenomenal day with my blog; over 1,500 hits today (so far) and rapidly climbing. A recent review I did of “The Orville” found its way onto Reddit and HackerNews and just... exploded. Deeply grateful for the giant bump in readership!
The X-MEN & FANTASTIC FOUR Are Coming Home As Walt Disney Announces Acquisition Of 20th Century Fox
The Walt Disney Company has formally announced that they have officially acquired 21st Century Fox's film and TV assets, meaning the X-Men and Fantastic Four are coming home! Come take a look!
I said, “Hadn’t watched the remastered erosion before,” but fortunately you knew I meant “episode.” Damn you, Autocorrect! I can remember when spelling errors used to just be typos; now you get a completely nutty alternative meaning to your whole sentence.
It’s really good, because you don’t know where it’s going and it’s quite sinister. But in true Trek fashion, it does an about-face and gives you a positive by the story’s end. Sometimes I find Barclay a bit irritating, but he’s really good in this one. Yeah, I Iike those ones where the ship really does go far beyond the comfort zones. Q Who is another like the ones you mention (with a less positive outcome) and obvs Where No One Has Gone Before which is one of TNG S1’s most memorable episodes.
They have the remastered versions on Netflix; I may have to check "Nth Degree" out again sometime. That was an interesting episode. It's like "Where No Man Has Gone Before" but without the tragic ending. And in both episodes, the ship flies into an extreme in our galaxy; the outer rim and the galactic center. Never thought of that before...
Wha--? How did I miss this amazingly insightful post?
Wow. That is a spot-on analysis of where the TNG movies went off the rails. Well done, Mr. Picard.
As for the movies going from TNG to a quasi-TOS reboot? I think they were following the reboot/prequel craze that had overtaken a lot of franchises at that time (Bond, Star Wars, etc) and assumed (correctly or not) that TOS was next in line. And I agree that the TNG movies were increasingly forcing a square peg through a round hole; they were trying to make the TNG characters action archetypes and caricatures rather than the more subtle, nuanced people that they were in their TV series.
My concern with another Bad Robot movie, particularly one under Tarantino, is that it's possibly making the same mistake you illustrate so well in your post about the TNG movies. If one looks at Tarantino's oeuvre, he's a bad fit for a Star Trek movie, even if he likes it ("Kill Bill" opens with a quote from TWOK, which itself is an old Sicilian proverb). Tarantino overseeing a Bad Robot Trek film is like having Michael Bay take over directing duties on a remake of Steel Magnolias. It's just a bad fit.
He will make the Bad Robot incarnations of the TOS characters even more caricatured than before; as most of the characters in his recent movies has all been caricatures, and not real human beings. It's ironic, since the older Tarantino movies are quite deft with characterization, but that Tarantino hasn't really existed for awhile. Everything he's done in the last 12 years or so has been wildly over-the-top and almost cartoonish.
Since the Bad Robot Trek movies have already 'amped up' the TOS characters a bit (everyone's a super sexy genius all of the sudden...), I think it's only going to take them one more step further from who they really are.
But I digress; I still don't think Tarantino-Trek is going to happen at all. I don't know why, but I see it going along the same lines as the twice-aborted Bryan Singer Battlestar Galactica remake that never happened...
I would agree insomuch as the fact that modern studio imperatives requiring writers squeeze the TNG crew into a superhero movie plot resulted in bad writing that resulted in low ticket sales. Back in the day I used to assume that a future TNG movie would try to capture the TNG spirit that was on display in All Good Things and many other episodes: the TNG sense of wonder, adventure and moral dilemma but on a more epic scale. We never got this.
GEN was a film that had a lot in common with the previous six in how it approached its story. FC was as well, but the action imperative was creeping in--it worked like gangbusters. But by INS, the Hollywood imperatives were taking over. Piller wanted to tell a certain type of story that simply could not fly as a summer or holiday release. And by NEM the main driver was the Hollywood blockbuster rules. It's not only that those rules do not fit well with the TNG crew, it's that those rules produce bad movies at least half the time no matter what type of movie it is. NEM was one of them.