RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,849
Posts: 5,220,993
Members: 24,232
Currently online: 631
Newest member: glasssplashback

TrekToday headlines

Takei To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Yelchin In New Comedy
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

U.S. Rights For Pegg Comedy Secured
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Shatner: Aging and Work
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Kurtzman And Orci Go Solo
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Star Trek #32 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Voyager Bridge Via The Oculus Rift
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Miles Away Glyph Award Nominations
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 18 2009, 07:53 PM   #1
Middle Earther
Commodore
 
Middle Earther's Avatar
 
Location: BC, Canada
View Middle Earther's Twitter Profile
Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

I was poking in the nuTrek forum and came across a thread mentioning RE's latest "Answer Man" that is all about nuTrek: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=93313

I then thought, as I was inspired by the rottentomatoes thread in this forum, it would be interesting to look at how he has rated all the other movies and here they are:

ST: TMP (1979) 3 stars
ST II: TWOK (1982) 3 stars
ST III: TSFS (1984) 3 stars
ST IV: TVH (1986) 3 and a half stars
ST V: TFF (1989) 2 stars
ST VI: TUC (1991) 3 stars
ST: Gen. (1994) 2 stars
ST: FC (1996) 3 and a half stars
ST: Ins. (1998) 2 stars
ST: Nem. (2002) 2 stars
Star Trek (2009) 2 and a half stars

(Please note that Ebert rates on a 4 star scale) I was actually surprised by these and I'm an Ebert fan who has been following his writing for years. I never looked at all the ratings at once and noticed that his ratings are not far off what most ST fans have rated the movies, aside from the newest. I also was surprised that two of the movies received three and a half stars, which means that they were much better received by him than I remember. My quibbles are that I would only give three and a half stars to First Contact and The Undiscovered Country and reduce STIV to three stars. I would also reduce the first movie to two stars, or maybe one and a half. What do you think?
__________________
A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

Last edited by Middle Earther; May 18 2009 at 07:59 PM. Reason: font,copy, paste issues....
Middle Earther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2009, 08:02 PM   #2
Mr. B
Vice Admiral
 
Mr. B's Avatar
 
Location: New Orleans
Send a message via ICQ to Mr. B Send a message via AIM to Mr. B Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Mr. B Send a message via Yahoo to Mr. B
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

I have a great deal of respect for Ebert and his opinions which I agree with more often than not. I haven't read all his Trek reviews in full, but I don't have any major disagreements with his star ratings of these movies.
__________________
“Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.”
-Oscar Wilde
Mr. B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2009, 08:50 PM   #3
Shatmandu
Vice Admiral
 
Shatmandu's Avatar
 
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

I ignore published movie critics, myself.

I'd rather get the opinion of someone who doesn't live, eat, sleep, and shit film. The layman has more perspective.

Joe, imagining Ebert passing reel 2
Shatmandu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2009, 10:11 PM   #4
Myasishchev
Rear Admiral
 
Myasishchev's Avatar
 
Location: America after the rain
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

I like Ebert, and find his reviews entertaining and I can often sense whether I would like something based on them--but I often disagree with him. For example, 3 1/2 stars for First Contact is insane. It's a terrible film.

Also, the bastard gave North zero stars. That movie was awesome.
__________________

Myasishchev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2009, 10:53 PM   #5
Kirby
Rear Admiral
 
Kirby's Avatar
 
Location: Alt: 5280
View Kirby's Twitter Profile
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

He's pretty generous to give TFF and NEM 2 stars. I can't say I disagree with the rest, maybe XI should have 3 stars, but once I see if 2 or 15 more times my opinion may change.
Kirby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2009, 06:11 AM   #6
Too Much Fun
Commodore
 
Too Much Fun's Avatar
 
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

I've been reading those for years as a huge fan of Ebert, but I think he only posted his reviews for "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" online recently, so I've been wondering what he thought about those for a long time.

I think all those ratings are pretty spot on, except giving so many movies the same rating implies they're a lot more similar than they really are. He gave most of the original Star Trek movies three stars and most of the TNG movies two stars which makes sense since most of the former are good and most of the latter are bad, but this fails to acknowledge the fact that they're good and bad to different degrees.

I'm not sure if I agree about the first one. I need to give the first Star Trek movie another look. I've only tried to watch it once and was too bored to get through the whole thing. Based on that, I think he's being too generous towards it, but I have to see the whole thing again to decide for sure.

I wish he'd given the Wrath of Khan a little more credit, but it sounds like the weak special effects diminshed it in his eyes (as they did with me), which perhaps cost it half a star. Still, it's clearly far superior to "The Motion Picture" and "The Search for Spock" and at least as good as "The Voyage Home", if not better.

I totally understand why "Star Trek IV" and "Star Trek: First Contact" are his highest rated ones. I agree that they are the most accessible, tightly written, and entertaining ones. The new one may have more mainstream acceptance than they did, but they definitely have more straightforward and engaging plots with fewer plot holes (although some people love to nitpick about that when it comes to "STFC", unfortunately ).
Too Much Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2009, 06:21 AM   #7
Kirk1980
Fleet Captain
 
Kirk1980's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Send a message via AIM to Kirk1980 Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Kirk1980 Send a message via Yahoo to Kirk1980
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

Too Much Fun, I would highly recommend the Director's Edition of TMP. Very much improved over the one I'm guessing you saw.
__________________
Live in the Connecticut/SW Massachusetts area? Need a tutor for you or your kids? PM me!

Let's see what's out there...
Kirk1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2009, 06:26 PM   #8
Saxman1
Commodore
 
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

Ebert has confessed in the past he's more of a Star Wars fan than Star Trek. He said in his review of Nemesis that he realized Star Trek was over for him. So I didn't expect anything more than two stars for Star Trek (2009).

I don't live and die by what he says, nor do I care. Someone whose favorite film of all-time is Citizen Kane is someone I'm not going to have a lot of common ground with. Besides, he's seen too many movies at this point, is too cynical and often offers how he would have shot the film personally if he doesn't like it. Go make your own film! You've been doing this since 1966 - you're stale.
Saxman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2009, 07:07 PM   #9
Myasishchev
Rear Admiral
 
Myasishchev's Avatar
 
Location: America after the rain
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

He did. It was called Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
__________________

Myasishchev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2009, 08:19 PM   #10
Saxman1
Commodore
 
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

Myasishchev wrote: View Post
He did. It was called Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
Ah, a towering artistic achievement!
Saxman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2009, 09:07 PM   #11
CaptainCanada
Admiral
 
CaptainCanada's Avatar
 
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

Ebert and Berardinelli are my favourite reviewers; I always check out what they have to say.

His rankings on the films are pretty reasonable, though I'd have put TWOK a bit higher.
__________________
"I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are!"

- Homer Simpson
CaptainCanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2009, 09:13 PM   #12
miraclefan
Commodore
 
miraclefan's Avatar
 
Location: The F U state of TEXAS!
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

He has a right to his opinion, as do we. I don't agree on some of his reviews, but I'm not the one having reviews published.
__________________
THEY WERE THE POLICE...JUDGE...JURY...& EXECUTIONER ALL IN ONE.

THEY WERE THE JUDGES!
miraclefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2009, 09:51 PM   #13
FormerLurker
Captain
 
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

My one thought about Roger Ebert is that for all his film knowledge, he actually has little Star Trek knowledge. He has in a few reviews panned elements of Star Trek that are linchpins in what and how Star Trek works. I don't have any available off-hand or I would refer to them directly.
FormerLurker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2009, 11:24 PM   #14
Middle Earther
Commodore
 
Middle Earther's Avatar
 
Location: BC, Canada
View Middle Earther's Twitter Profile
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

FormerLurker wrote: View Post
My one thought about Roger Ebert is that for all his film knowledge, he actually has little Star Trek knowledge. He has in a few reviews panned elements of Star Trek that are linchpins in what and how Star Trek works. I don't have any available off-hand or I would refer to them directly.
I would agree with you on that one - he's not "into" ST. I know he always questions why the ships would smoke and crackle so much when they are in battle scenes. I think that reference would be in the last two TNG movies, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
__________________
A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams
Middle Earther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2009, 01:50 AM   #15
Stardate
Fleet Captain
 
Stardate's Avatar
 
Re: Roger Ebert's ST Movie History

Elbert gives ST: TMP (1979) 3 stars. Here is a movie critic with good taste. However i would recommend Elbert to watch the Director's Edition of TMP. I am pretty sure he will give it 3 & 1/2 star.
__________________
Star Trek change everything, and aren't this convention wonderful: William Shatner
Stardate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.