I feel very much the same.
Which film has aged the worst?
- Thread starter enterprisecvn65
- Start date
I feel very much the same.
For me, it's a tie between TFF and TUC.
TFF was the first Trek movie I saw in the theater as a kid, and I thought it was freakin' awesome! Now... not so much.
It's the same for me with TUC, and I agree with enterprisecvn65's previous comments. It was a spectacular experience in the theater, but later I was able to spot all the flaws in the story (as well as the cheapness of the production).
I also thought the best Superman movies were 3 and 4. Ah, the follies of youth.
Kor
TFF was the first Trek movie I saw in the theater as a kid, and I thought it was freakin' awesome! Now... not so much.
It's the same for me with TUC, and I agree with enterprisecvn65's previous comments. It was a spectacular experience in the theater, but later I was able to spot all the flaws in the story (as well as the cheapness of the production).
I also thought the best Superman movies were 3 and 4. Ah, the follies of youth.
Kor
The score was far and away the best thing about the film. Dennis McCarthy did a tremendous job and it's a damn shame that it was wasted on such horrible schlock.
I'm surprised so many people are mentioning First Contact. IMHO, it's probably the closest in construction to a modern popcorn movie in most every respect and the FX hold up to my eye. It's got CGI in it (like the Borg queen being in pieces) which is just an early example of what is now routine even in low-budget stuff (like the see-through body in Ex Machina). I just don't see what's so "dated" about it.
I'm also surprised nobody's mentioning Trek IV because it effectively "dates" itself by showing the world as it was in 1986. Depending on your point of view, that could give it a free pass, since it did present "the past", hence it's a time-capsule.
The problem with Trek V is it never fully sells you that the actors are playing roles. It just looks like "Shatner and friends hang out on the bridge".
I also don't think Trek VI is that dated to me other than the need it had to beat the end-of-the-USSR drum. The only other thing that's dated about, I guess, was Nick Meyer's attempt to make it stylistically continue where Trek III left off, rolling back some of the TNG-isms and bringing back old-school wall details like the fire extinguishers. But there are a lot of deliberate anachronisms like "right standard rudder" and the galley that seems all too manual-labor with the pots and pans hanging off the wall and the paper books and blueprints. But it did have one of the earliest examples of digital morphing with the shapeshifter.
I'm also surprised nobody's mentioning Trek IV because it effectively "dates" itself by showing the world as it was in 1986. Depending on your point of view, that could give it a free pass, since it did present "the past", hence it's a time-capsule.
The problem with Trek V is it never fully sells you that the actors are playing roles. It just looks like "Shatner and friends hang out on the bridge".
I also don't think Trek VI is that dated to me other than the need it had to beat the end-of-the-USSR drum. The only other thing that's dated about, I guess, was Nick Meyer's attempt to make it stylistically continue where Trek III left off, rolling back some of the TNG-isms and bringing back old-school wall details like the fire extinguishers. But there are a lot of deliberate anachronisms like "right standard rudder" and the galley that seems all too manual-labor with the pots and pans hanging off the wall and the paper books and blueprints. But it did have one of the earliest examples of digital morphing with the shapeshifter.
Are you saying that Chekov's pink suede suit with the pilgrim collar that magically disappears between scenes isn't considered to be a timeless fashion icon?!?!?!
Its a combination of all the perms and the shiny leather/vinyl jackets. That style was so fleeting.
All these votes for TUC are making me scared to rewatch what I still consider to be my favorite Trek movie!
I'm one of those people. Though I loved it when it first came out, now I think a good portion of it looks cheap and a bit naff, especially the sets - The Enterpise E interiors looked plasticky and ugly and were shot like a TV show, (unlike it's predecessor) and I thought a lot of the FX in Generations were superior, and though there were still some good stand out sequences (the pull-back, fleet battle)- the film never seemed to come off big or epic and I think it's visually Inferior to the previous movie.
That being said...
Much like The Wrath of Khan, it's a damn entertaining movie from start to finish, is paced to perfection, has just the right amount of humour and has a great score to boot, and these paper over any cracks. It's in the top half of all Trek movies, but it's no longer top three material as it once was in my eyes.
^ I think there's probably a 'fatigue factor' involved in retrospect too. People may have kind of come to re-evaluate First Contact poorly in light of the two subsequent TNG movies, whose flaws and faults are largely traceable to trying to replicate the success of First Contact by aping it's style. What tvtropes calls a 'Franchise Original Sin'.
I happen to know *real* hardline folks who have re-evaluated The Wrath Of Khan in a similar way, feeling that that movie, as entertaining as it is on its own merits, straight-jacketed the movie franchise into what it is today, and therefore deserves some of the 'blame' in retrospect.
I happen to know *real* hardline folks who have re-evaluated The Wrath Of Khan in a similar way, feeling that that movie, as entertaining as it is on its own merits, straight-jacketed the movie franchise into what it is today, and therefore deserves some of the 'blame' in retrospect.
^ I think there's probably a 'fatigue factor' involved in retrospect too. People may have kind of come to re-evaluate First Contact poorly in light of the two subsequent TNG movies, whose flaws and faults are largely traceable to trying to replicate the success of First Contact by aping it's style. What tvtropes calls a 'Franchise Original Sin'.
I happen to know *real* hardline folks who have re-evaluated The Wrath Of Khan in a similar way, feeling that that movie, as entertaining as it is on its own merits, straight-jacketed the movie franchise into what it is today, and therefore deserves some of the 'blame' in retrospect.
I think we can agree that both movies were decent despite their production values.
A
Amaris
Guest
That one's easy. They traveled back in time to find some humpback whales. The year they arrived in was 1986.
TMP's 1970s sexual politics regarding the bald lady upsets a lot of women these days. It's very gynephobic, according to them.
I've always judged TVH differently to the other movies as it's more or less a flat out comedy, and I find myself almost unable judge it against the others again here with this point also. As a piece of film capturing 1986 San Francisco it works fine. The other visuals are dated but still hold up and service the story well enough.
Hey, it can still be your favorite Trek movie. I think most of us here recognize flaws and "dated-ness" of our favorites in some form or way.
I'm a little skeptical of this claim, only because I haven't heard of a lot of women (or anyone, for that matter) really deconstructing TMP in the first place.
But if I had to hazard a guess, I think it's important to note that the movie is resolved precisely because a man overcame fear (at least, an entire planet's fear, not necessarily his own) to embrace a woman, saving the world in the process.
I would agree. The Wrath of Khan definitely has a cinematic feel to it...at least IMHO.
I would also agree with this. FC certainly has it's moments but TWOK, despite it's own cheapness in places feels more cinematic to me too.
I don't think any of the films have really "aged." But TVH is the one most strictly dated.
I'll say a little about each film.
TMP:
It's not aged well. While it looks nice and still kind of realistic in technology presentation, that too is aging poorly as each decade passes. The clothing and hair dated it even when it premiered; it reminds me of something a film composer (who I dont' recall the name of) said when scoring a science fiction film: don't score it with dated synths and cheesy ideas, make it a classical orchestral approach so it will age well.
TWoK:
Same thing with the tech'. The re-design of uniforms and the idea of revenge from an elistist who holds himself up above others, hasn't aged. So this one has aged so far pretty well.
TSfS:
This one hasn't aged as well as TWoK.
TVH:
The poor tech', outdated tech, and of course the looks of the period from people, has dated the film. Then of course the cold war element being gone, has dated it (though it's re-emerging, so that could change). The message of man is evil / save the whales, is dated -- Hollywood kind of plowed through that period in film and TV by that time, so even then it was kind of dated some. But it's still something of a guilty pleassure, and Rosenman's score still kicks ass.
TFF:
I won't say the special effect are quite as bad as some say (but sometimes they give "Jaws 3D" a run for it's bad money), but they have quickly been dated. The whole plot idea isn't dated and is still plausible, but the idea of some kind of mental power in Sybok's brain and certain other little elements, are just dated as hell.
TUD:
Aside from again the technology becoming dated, I can't say anything per se in the film has become dated. There are still tense relations with countries that could one day work toward peace; there are still people looking to sabotage good on behalf of evil.
G:
This has aged the best, in my view. Much of the tech' has aged well (though I must stipulate non of the Trek shows or films aslways handled tech' the best and was even dated when it aired in some respects) and the ideas of life and death will always be with us.
FC:
The whole thing has aged poorly. It's a fan-wank film, done poorly and written poorly, with gimmicky designs some of which are products of their time (kind of like the color lighting schemes on TOS) and takes a timeless plot idea of battle against a superior force for the fate of a people, and turns it into a dated revenge story.
I:
This was dated when it aired. It's like some hokey science fiction show from the '70's and '80's polished and presented for the big screen. The plot is kind of stale and not necessarily aged poorly or well -- it's just sort of there (and not handled well). This is perhaps one of hte most poorly aged of the films.
N:
Many of the same arguments as the last two films. I might also add that instead of trying to appeal bigger ideas and looks that would keep it in a slow-age progress, it turns in on itself and becomes self-absorbed, to a bad degree. I still want my fucking money back from this horse hockey of a film.
TMP:
It's not aged well. While it looks nice and still kind of realistic in technology presentation, that too is aging poorly as each decade passes. The clothing and hair dated it even when it premiered; it reminds me of something a film composer (who I dont' recall the name of) said when scoring a science fiction film: don't score it with dated synths and cheesy ideas, make it a classical orchestral approach so it will age well.
TWoK:
Same thing with the tech'. The re-design of uniforms and the idea of revenge from an elistist who holds himself up above others, hasn't aged. So this one has aged so far pretty well.
TSfS:
This one hasn't aged as well as TWoK.
TVH:
The poor tech', outdated tech, and of course the looks of the period from people, has dated the film. Then of course the cold war element being gone, has dated it (though it's re-emerging, so that could change). The message of man is evil / save the whales, is dated -- Hollywood kind of plowed through that period in film and TV by that time, so even then it was kind of dated some. But it's still something of a guilty pleassure, and Rosenman's score still kicks ass.
TFF:
I won't say the special effect are quite as bad as some say (but sometimes they give "Jaws 3D" a run for it's bad money), but they have quickly been dated. The whole plot idea isn't dated and is still plausible, but the idea of some kind of mental power in Sybok's brain and certain other little elements, are just dated as hell.
TUD:
Aside from again the technology becoming dated, I can't say anything per se in the film has become dated. There are still tense relations with countries that could one day work toward peace; there are still people looking to sabotage good on behalf of evil.
G:
This has aged the best, in my view. Much of the tech' has aged well (though I must stipulate non of the Trek shows or films aslways handled tech' the best and was even dated when it aired in some respects) and the ideas of life and death will always be with us.
FC:
The whole thing has aged poorly. It's a fan-wank film, done poorly and written poorly, with gimmicky designs some of which are products of their time (kind of like the color lighting schemes on TOS) and takes a timeless plot idea of battle against a superior force for the fate of a people, and turns it into a dated revenge story.
I:
This was dated when it aired. It's like some hokey science fiction show from the '70's and '80's polished and presented for the big screen. The plot is kind of stale and not necessarily aged poorly or well -- it's just sort of there (and not handled well). This is perhaps one of hte most poorly aged of the films.
N:
Many of the same arguments as the last two films. I might also add that instead of trying to appeal bigger ideas and looks that would keep it in a slow-age progress, it turns in on itself and becomes self-absorbed, to a bad degree. I still want my fucking money back from this horse hockey of a film.
The movies are fine, nothing wrong there. It's the fans who aren't aging well. 
Aren't your two statements above contradictory? You seem have commented based on how much you like the film and not whether it's dated.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
