Revisiting the films...

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Warped9, Jun 1, 2012.

  1. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    I've revisited TNG, TOS and a number of other shows, but it's been quite sometime since I've gone back to the Trek films.

    I liked them all in varying degrees when they were released, but over time I became jaded with some of them. Now it's been quite a few years.

    So I think I'll revisit them. Well, most of them anyway. Candidly I was never really fond of the TNG films. The first two had some merit, but I couldn't find anything to like in the last two. And, of course, I won't be bothering with ST09. There's only so much I can endure. :lol:

    And so:

    Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Director's Edition)
    Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (Director's Edition)
    Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
    Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
    Star Trek: Generations
    Star Trek: First Contact


    Stay tuned...
     
  2. Gojira

    Gojira Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Stompin' on Tokyo
    It will be interesting to read your perspectives. I just got t through watching all of them myself.
     
  3. Lord Garth

    Lord Garth Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    It's your revist but, for the sake of completeness (and if you're open to suggestions), maybe you could provide reviews of INS and NEM based on what you remember?

    That way you'd have provided a complete overview of all 10 pre-reboot movies and can compare the TOS films as a whole against the TNG films as a whole. It would be the TV equivalent of comparing one "season" to another.
     
  4. LOKAI of CHERON

    LOKAI of CHERON Commodore Commodore

    I'd go for the Theatrical version of TWOK - far superior. As for TMP, I'd watch the DE and the Theatrical for comparative purposes - personally, I prefer the original in this case also.
     
  5. plynch

    plynch Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Location:
    Outer Graceland
    Why?
     
  6. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Thats what I was thinking. I have the DE ready to go so why would I go out of my way to hunt down a theatrical version that I felt was terribly flawed?
     
  7. LOKAI of CHERON

    LOKAI of CHERON Commodore Commodore

    As already stated - for comparative purposes.
     
  8. LOKAI of CHERON

    LOKAI of CHERON Commodore Commodore

    OK, that's good - go with the DE and forgo the hunt.
     
  9. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    I've seen the theatrical version at least twice (way back when) and the ABC TV extended version at least twice. Then the DE came along and I thought, Whoa, what a difference!

    The DE isn't perfect (nothing ever is really), but if this is what we'd gotten in 1979 I think the film would have taken less flak.
     
  10. Gojira

    Gojira Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Stompin' on Tokyo
    I have not seen the theatrical cut of TMP in decades. I do love the DE but I would love to see the theatrical cut of TMP some day.

    What is the difference between the theatrical cut of TWOK and Director's cut?
     
  11. plynch

    plynch Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Location:
    Outer Graceland
    I meant why you prefer it.
     
  12. Mage

    Mage Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Kinda odd that you'd go to such lenghts to share your opinion on the movies, but just don't watch three of them. And you even make it sound as fact instead of opinion that they are bad. You may not like them, and that's fine, but please state it as opinion instead of fact. Plenty of people on this forum that love INS, NEM and Trek09, so stating as a fact that they are terrible makes no sense.
     
  13. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    This is an accusation often thrown around on message boards: an opinion offered as fact. We share our opinions no matter what they might be based upon. If we are sharing a fact then we should be citing a source to back it up.

    Today I'm going to start watching the films and then I'll be sharing my opinion. If someone perceives that as being offered a fact then thats their problem and not mine.

    I've seen INS and NEM and there wasn't one thing I liked about either. I thought they were throughly stupid works. They might have been made passable as one hour television episodes, but certainly not as padded out two hour movies. To revisit something there has to be at least something I liked in it even if overall I didn't think much of it previously. I'm certainly not going to bother revisiting something I disliked thoroughly.

    The same applies to ST09. I've seen it twice and over the past few years I've stated numerous times how much I disliked the film and what I disliked about it. And so what would be the point of revising something I detested?
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
  14. Mage

    Mage Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    This statement. You make it sound as a fact that ST09 sucks, not an opinion. Something that's happening on the forum a lot lately I'm afraid. People have an opinion, but instead of saying 'I think ST09 was bad' or 'I feel ST09 was a bad film', people use statement as 'ST09 is horrible' or 'ST09 is terrible'. Using the word 'is' does not imply opinion, it implies fact.
     
  15. Gojira

    Gojira Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Stompin' on Tokyo
    Thank you! I am glad someone else understands!
     
  16. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Sorry, but you're you're just playing with words. If someone says, "This is dull" it's obviously an opinion. It's just a different way of saying "I think this is dull" or "I feel this is dull." People can be forceful or emphatic with their opinions, as evidenced by how they express them, but they're still just opinions.


    This afternoon I'll start watching the films. In the interim here's a thumbnail sketch of my opinion based mostly on memory.

    Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Director's Edition)
    - The theatrical release was interesting and welcome after a dry decade of reruns. The longer television version added some previously deleted bits that gave the film a tad more feeling. The DE tightens the film up in the right places and added some visuals originally planned but never finished---it's much closer to what we should have gotten in 1979. But all three versions suffer from a lack of character drama. The story needed something to up the ante dramatically rather than just the threat of Vger. Unfortunately thats not something you can CGI into a film.
    Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (Director's Edition)
    - A lot more energy and loads of more character drama than the first film. The characters feel more like themselves. Some really nice visuals. But in some respects this doesn't feel like the Star Trek I saw in TOS. With the changes in costumes and injection of questionable ideas this has something of a retro feel to it particularly after the look of TMP. There are also a lot of logic holes I find disturbing. Every film has logic flaws, but a good film usually helps you overlook them.
    Star Trek III: The Search For Spock
    - In some respects it feels warmer than TWOK in terms of the characters, but it's so obviously a continuation of the previous movie. Some nice character moments, but again the logic flaws are a little too apparent.
    Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
    - TOS had done humour, but it was usually contextual. This film is part of an over arcing story of which the previous parts were serious minded while this one plays more like a comedy. The setup has us laughing at the characters rather than with them. My least favourite of the TOS based movies. When I think of time travel in Star Trek I think of "Tomorrow Is Yesterday," "The City On The Edge Of Forever," "Assignment: Earth" and "Yesteryear" I'm not thinking of "I, Mudd."
    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
    - Like some of TOS' third season episodes there is a worthy story at the heart of this exercise, but it's buried under a lot of silliness. There's too much mucking around with extraneous crap and trying too hard to get a laugh. There's quite a bit of energy in this movie and also some good character moments in it. Sadly, the film often looks cheap due to poor use of budget and resources.
    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
    - In some respects these Klingons are more like those seen in TNG. There is more diversity of character. I also liked that we saw Klingons that didn't look alike whereas in TNG onward so many of them looked and dressed very much alike. It also harkened back to some of the better Klingons we got in TOS, namely Kor and Kang, and eschewed the cardboard cutouts of second season TOS, TSFS and TFF. Nicholas Meyer serves us more retro looking Trek and more annoying logic flaws.
    Star Trek: Generations
    - The film is entertaining when Shatner is on the screen and mostly dull as dishwater the rest of the time. The destruction of the E-D is so contrived and such a cheap ploy it's more insulting than saddening. The death of Kirk, and the manner of it, is like a slap in the face to longtime fans.
    Star Trek: First Contact
    - TNG tries to do their version of TWOK with a lot of action and energy. Along the way they re-invent (or redefine) the Borg, redefine a historical Trek figure and rewrite history (contextually). The new E-E looks like some fanboy's wet dream. This version of TNG also looks darker than the already dark version offered up in GEN.

    Thats what I remember.

    Stay tuned...
     
  17. Mage

    Mage Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007

    It may 'obviously' be an opinion, but when you use a word (the word 'is') that is linked the stating fact, not opinion, there's no playing of words involved. It's simple English. If you want to talk on a board where discussions are taking place all the time, it's best to use the language used on that forum in a proper way to make yourself 100% clear, so people know exactly what your saying. You mean to convey a feeling, but you do it in a way that is used to state a fact. Ofcourse some people are going to be confused about what you want to say.

    Miscommunication is what starts most of the arguments on forums. Using the proper way to say something, so no room for misinformation is left open, you can avoid such situations.
     
  18. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Well then we're about to have an argument. I've done numerous "revisiting" threads and in them I've only offered up my opinion. I'm not the one who went into a thread and started accusing someone of putting their opinion across as if it were an established fact. If you can't read something for what it is then thats not my problem. I express myself as I see fit (as anyone does) and I make no apologies for it.

    It's been my experience that when people make this accusation they're often trying to discredit the one they're accusing and to derail the thread.

    Of course, thats merely my observation and not a proven fact...just in case someone needs that clarified.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
  19. Lord Garth

    Lord Garth Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Except he never said "is".

    He said, and you quoted upthread:

    There is no "is" in that sentence. Unless you count a contraction and it only refers to Warped9's unwillingness watch what he doesn't like.

    This, by the way, reminds me of Bill Clinton. "Well, that depends on what your definition of is is." [That's a joke, by the way.]

    People who've followed Warped9's posts know he doesn't like ST XI. This is an opinion of his. It's not news that it's his opinion. And, frankly, at the end of the day, who really cares?

    I have a Bachelor's Degree in Communication. I'm also a former-moderator. I understood Warped9 just fine.

    We're here to read, in this thread, his opinions of the movies. They're not mine, they're not yours, and I'm interested in his take. His opinion of the TOS movies, at least, seem like they'd be about the same as TNG, so it's not uniform and is in fact a different perspective. It'll be an interesting ride to revisit. And they're just his opinions whether he explicitely says it or not.

    The most common opinion that I've seen my 21 years as a fan is "even-numbered films are better than odd!" Or "II-IV is the peak!" I've read these hundreds of times. It's the equivalent of TNG's "The middle years are the best!" I like to read different perspectives.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
  20. J.T.B.

    J.T.B. Rear Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    If a person becomes confused between opinions and claims of fact without constant reminders I'd say it's more of a problem on the reader's side than the writer's. You'll notice that successful movie critics don't have to sprinkle their reviews with phrases like "in my opinion," "as I see it," "I think" and so on, which would not only be repetitive but is so obvious as to go without saying. I think most readers of this board are familiar enough with that type of writing to not be confused.

    Justin
     

Share This Page