Skip to main content

Lifeforms! You tiny little lifeforms! You precious little lifeforms! Where are you?

Star Trek: Generations
(1994)

(SPOILERS) For a series I never much cared for, I watched more than my fair share of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Probably because there was a dearth of science fiction TV at the time, and beggars can’t be choosers. Deep Space Nine was far superior of course, and I stuck with Voyager because of Robert Picardo (and, well, Seven of Nine). The big screen baton-passing affair that is Star Trek: Generations came out the same year ST:NG ended, and if I was to be snidey, I’d say it was the perfect encapsulation of the preceding seven seasons. Because it’s shite.


Kirk: Did we make a difference?

I dutifully saw Star Trek: Generations at the pictures, because it featured the Shat, but hadn’t revisited it since; I was underwhelmed, but don’t recall it being entirely worthless, just desperately weak, and a piss-poor way to write Kirk out.


That much hasn’t changed. I don’t know what Shatner was thinking, signing up to this. Did they convince him he’d be able to give his all to an affecting death the way Nimoy did in The Wrath of Khan? If so, you have to pity the fool, as James Tiberius’ demise is the least heroic end imaginable, falling off a bridge having been beaten up by Malcolm McDowell. Even Tom Baker’s CSO plunge (the one you didn’t actually see) at the end of Logopolis was more dramatically coherent. And the consequence was also that the Shat basically kyboshed involvement in further iterations of the Trek universe for the lamest of exits.


Kirk: I take it the odds are against us and the situation is grim?

That said, the Kirk material is by far the best of a pretty dire showing all round. I dare say Rick Berman, Ronald D Moore (Yesterday’s Enterprise) and Brannon Braga (er, that horrendous final ST:NG episode) did some stellar work during their time across the series, but the bulk of this is plain tedious, leading you to the conclusion that what’s working in the original crew scenes is not the writing so much as the charisma of the old hands. All three of them.


By rights, Scotty should come aboard the Enterprise D and lament what an ungainly piece of design she is. Koenig’s on good form at least, even if he’s obviously being given McCoy lines they couldn’t be arsed to rewrite (“What the hell is that?”). There’s the occasional flicker of old style writing (“I was never that young”: “No, you were younger” in reference to Sulu’s daughter and “Sulu. How did he find the time to have a family?” “And who knew he was gay?” isn’t, surprisingly, a line of dialogue). It’s notable, though, that coming out best from these scenes is Alan Ruck’s inexperienced captain, initially looking like he might be a bit of an arse, but then commendably deferring to the esteemed old hand (also on the bridge: Jenette “Vasquez” Goldstein and Tim “Tuvok” Russ).


Kirk: You say history considers me dead. Who am I to argue with history?

The Nexus plotline may be a load of wishy-washy nonsense (see also the fountain of youth in Insurrection for less-than-gripping Next Generation movie plot spines), a cosmic means to get that holodeck fantasy vignette thing going (more of which shortly), but the much-vaunted meeting of captains does at least evidence a few things. Such as: the movie, which fell into a stupor just as soon as Kirk exited, suddenly bursts into life when he’s back and making breakfast.


Dr Soran: Time has no meaning here.

The mismatch of acting styles between Shat and Stewart is a joy to behold, as the former, chopping wood and indulging comedy business (“Toast!”), makes the latter stand around looking stuffy and uptight… which is Picard all over. Watching them together, it confirms everything that’s right with OST and wrong with ST:NG. Even the Shat can’t make good on his terribly laboured realisation that this fantasy world is just a fantasy world, though. What an ignominious end for a once great captain.


Kirk: Who am I to argue with the captain of the Enterprise?

At least Kirk’s experiences are as nothing next to the indigestible syrup of Picard’s chocolate box Christmas greeting card vision of the family he never had (“I love you father, and now I must gag”).  I was put in mind of Buddy Hackett in Scrooged, but here it isn’t supposed to be revolting. And like everything in this version of Trek, everything has to be spelled out in the most tedious fashion. It’s like being forced to attend a literalist convention.


This trait is generally at its worst with anything involving Troi, and particularly in Generations with anything involving Data, who is gifted one of the most molten, cheese-infested subplots imaginable. Most of the ST:NG crew are pretty forgettable, and so get little more than walk-ons, be it Beverly (getting dunked is about it), or Geordi (captured by Klingons) or Worf (constantly on the precipice of a terrible headache). That leaves Picard, Data and Riker, which I guess at least offers a certain parity with the way the cards tended to fall in the OST.


Data: Humour, I love it!

Here, Data has an emotion chip fitted following the not-very-funny throwing Beverly in the water (apparently, it was a faux-pas: I rather think he should have jumped in after her and held her head under). This is only the most egregious evidence of the way Generations jams in stray subplots with zero attention to cohesion or coherence; there’s a holodeck scene for no other reason than it’s (apparently) a fan favourite. There are baddie Klingons because, well, despite there being peace now, there needs to be some old-school conflict to remind us this is a dramatic movie rather than the weekly 50 minutes of conflict-free proselytising.


Data’s path to humanity is one prolonged dose of patronisation. He becomes frightened, and cowardly, but it’s okay, because that’s a human thing to do (rather than being, say, court-martialled). He exclaims “Sir, I no longer want these emotions!” which leads to stern-but-true Picard laying down the law. And Brent Spiner gets to large it in a toe-curlingly goofy manner when Data’s full to the brim of emotional brio (“I just love saving lifeforms”). All of which culminates in the kind of dialogue you hoped had gone out with the ‘60s, as he is reunited with his cat (“I am happy to see Spot and I am crying. Perhaps the chip is malfunctioning”). Please, explain to me some more. I don’t understand.


And dear God, the holodeck. Whose bright idea was it to spend 10 minutes pursuing this nauseous nautical nightmare? Apart from anything, the holodeck conceit became an abjectly lazy storytelling crutch for the series. Worse, it plays like panto devoid of any of the fun (not that I’m saying pantos actually are fun, but you get the idea). Sober people going to the dress-up box and steadfastly refusing a tipple. The one upside of this sequence is that it showcases how entirely smug Jonathan Frakes always looks; you can’t help but be entertained by a guy who permanently has a self-satisfied grin plastered across his face, like he’s eaten the entire stock of the pie shop and is really proud of himself.


The villains. Well, I mentioned the Klingons. I guess they thought making them female would be something different, but it rather comes across as slightly tone deaf and sexist, being as they apparently plan to reconquer the Klingon empire with their mighty cleavage, and being catty women folk – they’re the same the universe over, don’t you know – they are given to remarks like “Human females are so repulsive”.


PicardIt’s our mortality that defines us, Soren. It’s part of the truth of our existence.

Besides the Shat, McDowell is the movie’s sole bright spot. Don’t get me wrong, Soren is a rubbish character, all lined up for pathos but given none (there’s nothing fleshed out; his backstory is sympathetic, but he’s written as a plain old psycho, the kind of part McDowell knows only too well). The actor’s always permanently wired, and Generations certainly needed someone to provide a jolt of energy. He’d have made a good Star Fleet captain, actually, given the role some edge, as opposed to stoic stodge that is Picard (he lost his brother and nephew, you know, but he’ll get over it). I don’t know about you, but if I had someone spouting stock platitudes at me while I’m minding my own business in a quarry, trying to fire a rocket that might cause universal carnage, I’d head butt them too.


Oh yeah. The locations. And the direction generally. Is this the cheapest looking big-screen Star Trek? If you thought The Search for Spock looked like a TV movie, you should check this out. The climax makes Kirk’s tussle in Arena look like Ben-Hur. The dogfight with the Klingons only reminds you how much better these things have been done before. And the saucer crash – trumpeted as a major set piece – really ain’t all that thanks to very obvious model work (it also really goes to underline Roddenberry’s warped logic: what idiot puts kids aboard a starship when there’s always some imminent threat about?)


Brit David Carson had been promoted to motion picture making, having helmed some of the best received ST:NG episodes, including Yesterday’s Enterprise, and had also directed The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and, er, Bergerac (tellingly, he has made only two features since). He was surely seen as a safe pair of hands who would bring it in on budget. It looks like he came in way under.


I’m sure ST:NG fans get something out of Star Trek: Generations, and I’m sure Kirk fans get something out of his final bow, however undercooked, but I find it baffling that Nemesis gets hauled over the coals when this, inferior in every respect, tends to get a free pass. It’s pompous, tedious and barely relieved by the presence of the Shat. Fortunately, next time they’d try and make something actually resembling a movie, rather a two-part TV episode trailing a shopping list of elements it needs to serve.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?