The movies are fine, nothing wrong there. It's the fans who aren't aging well.
+1
Which film has aged the worst?
- Thread starter enterprisecvn65
- Start date
+1
I think it's an interesting thread nonetheless. There's clearly a number of things at play that can overly 'date' a film, yet there's been a number of them down the years that to me, have stood the test of time so much better than other films of their time, cementing their classic status.
Just a few that spring to mind, all my opinion of course...
Star Wars
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Back to the Future
Aliens
Die Hard
Terminator 2
The Matrix
These are the top of the tree for me in the 'timeless' stakes, there's loads more obviously - and some I've not included on account of having not watched them for years, but these films to me can still hold their own to anything made today, and for various reasons, there seems to be just some kind of 'magic' that is captured with some of them, which is why Die Hard and Back to the Future for example in my view has aged so much better than their immediate sequels, yet T2 and Aliens have aged better than their predecessors, something with the cinematography maybe, I don't know, it's just an 'X factor'
Point being, have any of the Trek movies climbed these heights? I'd have to say no, the only one that comes remotely close for me is The Motion Picture.
Just a few that spring to mind, all my opinion of course...
Star Wars
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Back to the Future
Aliens
Die Hard
Terminator 2
The Matrix
These are the top of the tree for me in the 'timeless' stakes, there's loads more obviously - and some I've not included on account of having not watched them for years, but these films to me can still hold their own to anything made today, and for various reasons, there seems to be just some kind of 'magic' that is captured with some of them, which is why Die Hard and Back to the Future for example in my view has aged so much better than their immediate sequels, yet T2 and Aliens have aged better than their predecessors, something with the cinematography maybe, I don't know, it's just an 'X factor'
Point being, have any of the Trek movies climbed these heights? I'd have to say no, the only one that comes remotely close for me is The Motion Picture.
FC has not aged well? 
Different criteria, I guess.
Yeah, I agree, and the big orchestral score to me dates it all the more, ironically. Also the excessive, obvious matte paintings.
When I was a kid in the '80s, people remarked about TMP, "Oh, it's a '60s movie." And don't get me wrong, I enjoy it . . . as such.
Different criteria, I guess.
Yeah, I agree, and the big orchestral score to me dates it all the more, ironically. Also the excessive, obvious matte paintings.
When I was a kid in the '80s, people remarked about TMP, "Oh, it's a '60s movie." And don't get me wrong, I enjoy it . . . as such.
I think cinematography plays a huge part in it, probably more than we are consciously aware of. Films that have a faded or beige look seem to lack impact, whereas a colourful, high contrast image looks fresh. The earlier Trek movies do suffer in this respect, I think. Most of the TNG movies look very modern by comparison (INS isn't beige or faded, but it is terribly overlit with cheap-looking effects).
There are differences, but it's also presentation. IF you grow a rose in a bed of weeds, it doesn't look that great; if you grow a rose in a beautifully maintained flower garden, looks better, huh?
One is a story of a bad guy getting revenge, one is a story of a good guy seeking a type of revenge. One was believable, the other was not -- especially after season seasons of a thinking-man, cautious captain.
The first has never aged, I feel and also presents a classic template for a film or series. The other, on the other hand, hasn't aged well and often yeilds 50/50 results.
Who can forget the steely blue of T2 or the other worldly green of The Matrix?
Absolutely, FC, TSFS, and INS and to a lesser extent TUC, and TWOK were shot like TV movies, and it shows, especially the first few in the list. Perfect example in FC - the scene where all the borgs appear and shoot the red lasers out of their heads at the camera, they all just look like men in rubber suits on a small sound stage - there's loads more bits like that, where the sets just look cheap and wonky, the whole film just looks small scale too. If the whole premise and movie wasn't as entertaining as it was, First Contact would suck balls. This is one of the reasons Insurrection doesn't get a pass either, despite the nice location photography.
One pattern in the Trek films is that even those with the most big-budget FX featured a lot of "TV-movie-esque" live-action photography. For instance, the TOS-like soundstage version of the Genesis planet in Trek III on the one hand, and the magnificent spacedock and destruct sequence of the Enterprise in the same film.
Yeah for evey great FX sequence (and there's plenty) there are always bits in nearly all the movies bar TMP and the JJ movies where it looks very confined and on a small set. The budgets for these films were never big (again, bar TMP and NuTrek) and it's bound to show at some point. I think in the main they did very well for money they had.
One thing that I find tends to age the 80's movies is the use of contemporary computer graphics for the displays, which now look laughably terrible. TMP managed to avoid this with the use of the random film loops, which even though old technology for the time oddly enough helped futureproof it it better.
I personally don't really care that if costumes, sets, effects don't look very high budget but I think most of them in the Trek films does hold up pretty well, the only visual that looked kind of cheap was the bar in III.
The idea that a set or scene feeling small scale is necessarily worse than a larger scale also seems questionable to me, a smaller scale can increase the focus and intensity.
The idea that a set or scene feeling small scale is necessarily worse than a larger scale also seems questionable to me, a smaller scale can increase the focus and intensity.
The contrast between the sections shot by Nimoy, and those created by ILM at their height, is very large IMO.
First Contact is an odd beast in that I feel the Cochrane stuff has aged better while everything with the Borg has gotten worse with time. Its unfair to judge a piece of media by the flaws of those that came after it, but a lot of the original sins of the franchise (Borg Queen, Action Hero Picard, filler plots with Data) got their start here.
I think the outdoor scenes of Insurrection also hold up better, Frakes' location work tended to be shot much better and "cinematic" than that on the soundstages.
Starborn Dragon
Captain
I'm more concerned about story than special effects myself.
I think a lot of the criticisms are based on appearance of the film, rather than the story.
And that people are looking through today's lenses and judging the past in comparison.
I do love special effects though.
I think a lot of the criticisms are based on appearance of the film, rather than the story.
And that people are looking through today's lenses and judging the past in comparison.
I do love special effects though.
Well, the idea of the thread is discussing which of the films have "aged" poorly, which requires judging the past through today's lenses. And since films are such a visual medium, apperances tend to be the most prominent things that age a film.
Storywise most of them hold up fine, perhaps one could say the central idea of TUC is dated in the sense that it was paralleling the fall of the Soviet Union specifically, but the overall premise is sound, so the theme still plays convincingly today.
I went with First Contact. I loved the film, and it seemed good in its day, but when I watched it recently it seemed really cheesy and outdated.
The very uniform distribution of votes suggests that overall they've all held up pretty well, there's no blanket consensus on one or two that have really aged badly, which is nice to see really.
Similar threads
- Poll
