Amongst Trek nerds, there's a hotly debated but generally true rule that the odd-numbered Treks suck (I: The Motion Picture, III: The Search for Spock, and V: Kirk Kills God) while the even-numbered ones kick ass (II: The Wrath of Khaaaaaaan, IV: Spock Hugs a Whale, VI: The Undiscovered Country). I myself disagree strongly with regard to #1 and #5 which are two of my favorites, but alas even I must concede that they were generally not well received.
You see, dating all the way back to the 60s, the Trek stories have always been very personal, meaning certain stories will resonate with certain people but fail on the general audience. Call me crazy but I frickin LOVED "The Empath". Yeah, me and one other person, right? Long preamble aside, my point is that with Trek you'll get so many conflicting, subjective opinions that it's hardly any use to read reviews, aside from sheer entertainment factor which I will do my best to provide here.
Welcome to STAR TREK 7, aka "Why Did William Shatner Do This? Wasn't Priceline Earning Him Enough Money in the 90s?" This was Paramount Studio's attempt to reconcile Trekkies (fans of the original crew) and Trekkers (fans of The Next Generation), although I'd say this is squarely a Trekker next generation film with little more than a passing nod to the Trekkies and a somewhat forced "handoff" from Kirk to Picard. I won't get into that since the only amicable resolution of any Trekkie/Trekker debate is when both sides agree that the Federation would kick Darth Vader's butt.
As for this film, my biggest criticism with Star Trek Generations is that we don't feel any real peril. So it's hard to take the story as seriously as other Treks where, oh, the fate of the entire galaxy, universe or your momma rest in the balance. Danger seems contrived and random. The bad guy (admirably handled by Malcolm McDowell sporting an 80s Sting haircut) just isn't menacing or psychotic enough to get our attention like, for instance, Khan, who sets the tone right in the beginning by sticking a brain-eating worm in Chekov's ear. With Khan we know right away that we better set our inertial dampers on full because it'is going to be a wild ride. In contrast here in Generations, there's no real threat to the Enterprise or her crew, so we the audience are reduced to merely watching a series of events happen. Sure, these are events of importance, but emotionally we don't necessarily feel the emotional weight.
Of course this leads me right to the subject of the... well, the event that happens at the end. Just in case you've been living in the Genesis cave for the last 20 years and you don't know what that event is, I won't ruin it. But it feels like it comes totally out of left field and was unnecessary. Sort of like the Star Wars Christmas Special in 1978, I'd just as soon believe it never happened.
I'm going to do an about face now and tell you what's good about the movie. Data's subplot about trying to deal with emotions for the first time was awesome. It was both interesting as well as amusing, and it was a throwback to the Trek we all know & love which was driven by strong personalities and character development rather than plot points.
Similarly, there is a brief but powerful subplot about Picard and his personal tragedy. That was another great, profound moment which reminds us that Trek is more than phasers and special effects.
But alas, then we are thrown back into a plain old plot, which could've easily been the story of any other scifi and didn't require the Star Trek franchise behind it. Picard's (Patrick Stewart's) acting is first class as always, and it is mainly that plus the aforementioned Data story which keeps this movie rolling. But beyond that, all other characters are peripheral, wooden and somewhat forgettable.
The special effects are, well, 90s. That means they are neither nostalgic (like the 80s) nor technically impressive (like the 10s). They're just sorta... 90s. Apologies to anyone out there who grew up in the 90s. Your decade sorta sucked dude. Scifi wouldn't become cool again until the remake of Battlestar Galactica in 2003.
And on that note, YES, the same Ronald D Moore who masterminded Battlestar in 2003 is the guy who wrote the story and screenplay for Generations, so I can't imagine how it came up as short as a Ferengi's knee socks. But it did. The story was the worst part of this production because it didn't really give the actors a chance to shine.
We'll let Ronald off the hook just because Battlestar kicked ass.
I'm not sure if the Even-Odd rule holds true beyond 7 because I haven't seen 8 through (what are we on now?)13. And like I said, Trek tastes are entirely subjective and you may end up loving Generations more than any other. If so, I believe the Generations fan club is even smaller than my Empath fan club, so kudos for enduring the public shame. Hey it could be worse. You could be a fan of "Arena".
You see, dating all the way back to the 60s, the Trek stories have always been very personal, meaning certain stories will resonate with certain people but fail on the general audience. Call me crazy but I frickin LOVED "The Empath". Yeah, me and one other person, right? Long preamble aside, my point is that with Trek you'll get so many conflicting, subjective opinions that it's hardly any use to read reviews, aside from sheer entertainment factor which I will do my best to provide here.
Welcome to STAR TREK 7, aka "Why Did William Shatner Do This? Wasn't Priceline Earning Him Enough Money in the 90s?" This was Paramount Studio's attempt to reconcile Trekkies (fans of the original crew) and Trekkers (fans of The Next Generation), although I'd say this is squarely a Trekker next generation film with little more than a passing nod to the Trekkies and a somewhat forced "handoff" from Kirk to Picard. I won't get into that since the only amicable resolution of any Trekkie/Trekker debate is when both sides agree that the Federation would kick Darth Vader's butt.
As for this film, my biggest criticism with Star Trek Generations is that we don't feel any real peril. So it's hard to take the story as seriously as other Treks where, oh, the fate of the entire galaxy, universe or your momma rest in the balance. Danger seems contrived and random. The bad guy (admirably handled by Malcolm McDowell sporting an 80s Sting haircut) just isn't menacing or psychotic enough to get our attention like, for instance, Khan, who sets the tone right in the beginning by sticking a brain-eating worm in Chekov's ear. With Khan we know right away that we better set our inertial dampers on full because it'is going to be a wild ride. In contrast here in Generations, there's no real threat to the Enterprise or her crew, so we the audience are reduced to merely watching a series of events happen. Sure, these are events of importance, but emotionally we don't necessarily feel the emotional weight.
Of course this leads me right to the subject of the... well, the event that happens at the end. Just in case you've been living in the Genesis cave for the last 20 years and you don't know what that event is, I won't ruin it. But it feels like it comes totally out of left field and was unnecessary. Sort of like the Star Wars Christmas Special in 1978, I'd just as soon believe it never happened.
I'm going to do an about face now and tell you what's good about the movie. Data's subplot about trying to deal with emotions for the first time was awesome. It was both interesting as well as amusing, and it was a throwback to the Trek we all know & love which was driven by strong personalities and character development rather than plot points.
Similarly, there is a brief but powerful subplot about Picard and his personal tragedy. That was another great, profound moment which reminds us that Trek is more than phasers and special effects.
But alas, then we are thrown back into a plain old plot, which could've easily been the story of any other scifi and didn't require the Star Trek franchise behind it. Picard's (Patrick Stewart's) acting is first class as always, and it is mainly that plus the aforementioned Data story which keeps this movie rolling. But beyond that, all other characters are peripheral, wooden and somewhat forgettable.
The special effects are, well, 90s. That means they are neither nostalgic (like the 80s) nor technically impressive (like the 10s). They're just sorta... 90s. Apologies to anyone out there who grew up in the 90s. Your decade sorta sucked dude. Scifi wouldn't become cool again until the remake of Battlestar Galactica in 2003.
And on that note, YES, the same Ronald D Moore who masterminded Battlestar in 2003 is the guy who wrote the story and screenplay for Generations, so I can't imagine how it came up as short as a Ferengi's knee socks. But it did. The story was the worst part of this production because it didn't really give the actors a chance to shine.
We'll let Ronald off the hook just because Battlestar kicked ass.
I'm not sure if the Even-Odd rule holds true beyond 7 because I haven't seen 8 through (what are we on now?)13. And like I said, Trek tastes are entirely subjective and you may end up loving Generations more than any other. If so, I believe the Generations fan club is even smaller than my Empath fan club, so kudos for enduring the public shame. Hey it could be worse. You could be a fan of "Arena".