Star Trek: Generations

DVD, Star Trek: Generations (1994) film, In-Depth Review

'Star Trek: Generations' is the best 'Star Trek' film of them all. That isn't a statement you hear very often. It's not a statement that popular opinion would agree with. And it's not a statement that can pass without justification. But it is what I think, and I want to explain why, in detail.

For me there's a heavy nostalgic hand over this film which adds to the experience immensely, but it's not the nostalgia of seeing the film in the cinema, it's the nostalgia of that era of 'Star Trek,' when it had become so popular that there was a buzz about where it could go, what it could achieve. The film came out on the cusp of its creative rise to power, the crossroads of a year in which 'TNG' had triumphantly gone before its time (perhaps), 'DS9' had begun to stride out alone for its ground-breaking third season, and 'Voyager' was a matter of months away from debuting. Three generations, all meeting in the multimedia world before flashing off at warp speed in their own directions. But this film also brought back the previous generation, 'TOS,' represented by the launch of the Enterprise-B, the only ship in the line not to have been explored until that point, with Scotty, Chekov, and the most important captain of them all, James T. Kirk.

They could easily have decided to focus purely on the 'TNG' cast, to boldly put them up on the big screen and not look back. If the series had ended earlier and the film had been produced at that time, then perhaps that would have been the course taken, but the reality was that 'TNG' had become more successful than 'TOS' and had learned to embrace the races and universe the first series invented - it had proved itself and was big enough to connect with 'TOS' on a more precise level. It had nothing to prove and all to gain from tipping its warp nacelles at its predecessor, and had already done so several times in the series. 'Star Trek VI' is often viewed as one of the best films in the series, and rightly so, for it gave those original characters the send-off they deserved, poignantly making a difference, tying the two generations together with the ramifications of peace with the Klingons, first established in 'TNG,' and leaving them to ride off into the sunset as a family of officers one last time.

Originally, the whole cast had been written into the script for 'Generations,' but because most felt VI had been a stronger send-off for their character, only Scotty and Chekov came to be in it. I actually think that worked a lot better than if it had been the Big Three, with Spock and McCoy joining the party. If so, the attention would have been drawn far more towards the 'TOS' characters, unbalancing the film, perhaps distracting viewers who might wonder what adventures those three may have had and if they were still alive after being seen in 'TNG.' This was a film to launch the new characters onto the big screen, the 23rd Century was only supposed to be an inventive and satisfying leaping off point which could leave story threads that would be intelligently picked up in the 24th Century.

I first saw this film in early 1996, on a friend's video. At that point I wasn't totally savvy about 'Star Trek' - I'd seen 'TOS' in repeats during 1992-1993 or so, a few 'TNG' episodes and some of 'DS9' as well as most of the films, but it was all jumbled up in my mind, very loosely connected. I was also young enough to accept whatever happened in a film as if that was the only way it could be. Not that I believed films were real, but it didn't occur to me that someone wrote it, someone directed it, and that it could have been written in a different way or directed in another style. In later years, once I'd seen so many films I understood the mechanics of film-making, I began to question the creative choices that had been made in what I watched, so that by the time 'Nemesis' rolled around I knew what I liked and didn't like, and could see what was wrong or right. Watching films such as 'Generations' or the original 'Star Wars' films, perhaps because I saw them when I was young enough to accept everything, and because I repeatedly saw them in successive years, or maybe because they really were simply pushing those buttons that appealed to my imagination, I still see them as almost without flaw and find it difficult to accept that other people dislike this film or hate some of the choices that were made.

I should say for starters that it was only in the last three years that I saw this film in the way it was meant to be seen: widescreen, full-colour, sharp on a big screen with headphones for best quality sound. Previously I'd seen it on TV or video and had loved it then, but now I appreciate the visual side of it even more, and how much of an epic scope it achieves, beyond what was possible on the TV series, and matched only by later films and 'DS9' - how I wish that series could be modified into widescreen! The colour is so strong, the landscapes so defined, the contrast between the blackness of space and the brilliance of the uniform colours, or the crackling Nexus, or the natural, planetary environments.

Lighting the sets was an experienced Director of Photography (John Alonzo) who was apparently an expensive option, but worth the money, as shown in the beauty and incredible golden glow of scenes set around the Amargosa star. The shadows become so expressive and the light sharpens every detail. This is very apparent in the scenes set in Picard's ready room when Riker reports in, his quarters when Troi visits and Ten Forward when he encounters Soran for the first time. Everything is lit up like a Christmas tree, which is a suitable analogy because this film is the one that feels most like Christmas - such things are even spoken about in Guinan's description of the Nexus as being wrapped in joy. It's the same indefinable element that Harve Bennett and William Shatner strove for in the earlier films and talk about in the DVD commentaries for them, and its glow is felt throughout this film.

There is a fallacy which I used to go along with because it was the standard view, but which, upon viewing all the films as an adult I have come to realise is subjective and became the generally accepted position only because it was easier than really examining and analysing it: the rule that odd is bad, even is good. Films I, III, V, VII and IX tend to be slower, more introspective, perhaps more character-focused, according to this rule and weren't as successful either financially or creatively as II, IV, VI, VIII and… er, X. Most people probably abandoned the theory after 'Star Trek: Nemesis,' the tenth film, turned out to be a relative failure, and 'Star Trek XI' became the most financially successful film of all. The theory went that the even-numbered films were more action-oriented, would appeal to a mainstream audience and had the best stories, but it's really not the case in my eyes. That theory worked for the first two films only and from then on odd or even didn't necessarily follow a pattern.

Having watched all the films recently I have to say that as much as I love 'Star Trek II' for so many reasons, I enjoyed III a tiny bit more. IV, the most successful of the films until recently, is one of my least favourite because it's less 'Star Trek' for me, and I felt the characters were too often made to look silly. V continued that, but to a much lesser degree as it was about serious subjects and was so atmospheric that for me, it comes out just a little above the pack, just ahead of VI, which ends the original series so well, but can feel a little claustrophobic with its close corridors and underground caves. 'Generations' was far more expansive and managed to tick so many boxes that were thrown at it, was rushed through to completion in an incredibly tight time limit (JJ Abrams should take note - his twelfth film keeps being pushed back after more than two years of waiting), yet was still presented a vision that spanned tiny minutiae up to the suitably epic, that cinema cries out for.

To complete the set, 'First Contact' is the second best, just a nick under VII, while 'Insurrection' seemed the best when I first saw it, but over time has been relegated below the first two 'TNG' films, and then 'Nemesis' which was impressive at the cinema (the first Trek film I saw in that setting), was a missed opportunity in so many ways. XI felt much the same from the opposite direction (X was too visually depressing, needed more action, but had some nice character stuff and continuity, while XI was nice and bright, bold and brassy, but the characters were lost or not true, in a story full of gaping holes). One criticism levelled at VII is its apparent plot holes, which can be explained away, and look more like flea bites compared to the craters liberally scattered throughout XI, but I'll get to the perceived problems later.

I haven't really explained the individual pieces that make the experience of this my favourite film of the series because there are so many details and so many choices that work so well. If you'd like to understand my point of view please read the second part of this review.