I guess had there been 'deepfake' FX back in 2012/13 they could've had Cumberbatch's face revert back to Montalban'66 for the finale and had Spock chase and fight him hanging off the Botany Bay (therefore STID woudve tied with TUC 0 votes above )
100% this. It amazes me how much fans declare things to be the the best of Trek (Khan, Space Seed, TWOK, The Best of Both Worlds, DS9) and then are surprised when Trek producers decide to delve in to that and give them more. It's ridiculous the double standard that I see.
In fairness there's also the question of execution with such concepts and potentially diluting them by making most of a series output like it rather than a select few episodes. Best of Both Worlds is fantastic but TNG would not have worked as well as it did if most episodes were like it.
Certainly but this is not taken in to account by fans or by studio executives. It is simply "This is the best!" and "This is real Star Trek!" and that often is taken note of. And the same can be applied to fan films. Many deal with themes of war and combat, trauma and loss, or other darker themes. Again, I get that it's only one data point and that execution by production teams will vary. But, honestly, that's what is being shown as in demand.
This is why fans need to understand what it is they are complaining about and why. Having "lots of pew pew" doesn't matter if you have a strong story, well-structured plot, and strong characters to support it. If we were to give them everything they asked for (rather, everything they THINK they want), it wouldn't fix anything, as it would still have the same underlying issue, the writing and the execution. Because you notice, whenever we have episodes that have nothing to do with fighting bad guys and have no explosions what-so-ever, they either still complain, or pretend like they don't even exist.
A while back I posted a poll asking what makes something "Star Trek." I had a bunch of reasons for that, but one reason was that I kept seeing people post things like "This series is great because there are a lot of new ships." I posted somewhere about how disappointing Picard was, citing problems with story, character and plot, and one of the responses was "It's great because it's so woke." I came to the conclusion that Star Trek has almost no meaning. It's essentially a marketing term used by CBSmount to try to entice fans to watch a particular piece of science fiction-y kind of entertainment. I would love to see every show feature top-notch writing and acting, but realistically it's highly unlikely to happen.
TMP is the biggest disappointment to me. I was 9 years old, and had been watching ST on re-runs throughout the 70s. My parents were huge Trek fans. I waited in line for hours (no multiplexes in the 70s) only to see a slow, plodding movie with a ripped off plot from The Changeling, and everyone acted stiff and emotionless. TFF was a disappointment, for sure. Lame SFX and a bad story. Especially after the Magnum Opus of II-III-IV. I thought Generations was boring, but not a 'disappointement'. I gave up on ST after FC (loved it as much as TWOK, but nothing after interested me).
Thanks for pointing that out. That's also my issue with that film, which is nice and enjoyable enough, but also leaves me with an empty feeling inside. It's probably because of just what you stated. No ambition beyond "let's make another adventure and do cool things". That's why I infinitely prefer Generations (and yes, Nemesis too) to it.
Cumberbatch's performance was a good one and the internal facets of Khan was his own, and it worked well for the movie JJ Abrams made. He didn't disrespect Montalban by aping him or making the character appear silly; ID's Khan was the perfect red herring to a revelation which was to come and it was executed well IMO. I appreciated how the writers and the director handled their Khan as a genie who needed to be back in the bottle, a force of nature who was designed to create disorder and our heroes had to resolve it. Whatever Cumberbatch had done could never rise over the shadow of Montalban... no actor has because these movies continue to push this "Rocky" style comic booky "meeting his match" cliché, but that note should not be for Cumberbatch in that movie, that title of villain belonged to Peter Weller who still was overshadowed by the late, great actor.
Nemsis. Generations is a close second, but at least it didn't ruin the Romulan Movie I'd been waiting for for decades.
I'm going off my experience while looking at them in the theater. (Though I've only seen the TNG and Abrams-Lin films in the theater, so already TOS movies aren't factoring in). My two are Nemesis and Into Darkness.
Wasn't around at the time, but I don't see how the answer isn't TMP. Everyone had been waiting ten years for more live action star Trek. It had an academy award winning director and one of the biggest budgets ever up to that point. It was just two years after SW showing what you could do with space opera with the technology that existed at the time. The original trailer is badass. And then the movie is essentially something that would have been a meh episode of the show stretched to 2 1/2 hours. Sequels weren't as much of an established thing at the time so a lot of people were thinking that was the finale for the franchise basically. Had to have been a huge let down. Generations is runner up. The only thing that would have given me pause was that a TV director was doing it. Other than that you've got Malcolm McDowell as the villain, a solid trailer, and of course the excitement surrounding Kirk and Picard meeting. IDK about TFF. After three triumphs in a row they were due for a dud, and Shatner directing could not have been a good sign. The premise sounds silly even if you just read a couple sentence description.
As I said way up-thread: "I gave TMP a pass because it was the first feature film, and because I never saw it in theaters. While people may have been disappointed, anyone expecting it to be "just like" TOS was, to my mind, kidding themselves a bit. Also, for better or worse, each of the films that followed owes something to TMP, even if the something was a desire not to resemble it."
Definitely a science fiction "film" as opposed to space-action movie. I like it for itself and enjoy the others too.
If I seperate "Star Trek" from TMP then it works better for me. Really TOS is Star Trek and the rest are more thought experiments with a base recipie.
Most disappointing? Into Darkness for sure. I really enjoyed ST09 and for me, Beyond redeemed the Kelvin universe, but I can't stand Khan in any incarnation and the Kirk/Spock reversal and other stuff that was clearly meant to pander to the TWOK fans simply left me cold. I can see the value of TWOK as a well-crafted movie, but I can't stand Khan so it's painful to watch (Space Seed is my second-least favorite TOS episode, Turnabout Intruder is my least fave). Nemesis was the first Trek movie that I saw in theater, and for that reason I'll always have a soft spot for a fairly flawed movie. I saw the earlier ones on VHS, DVD and now blu-ray after that.
Probably why I am one of the few who legitimately enjoy Star Trek V the Final Frontier, as it was the first one I ever saw in theaters too. Granted, I was also 8 years old at the time, so that probably helps as well
TMP was in line to the ultra preachy season 3 of TOS, but many fans had or dismissed that season and looked upon how awesome and cool the previous seasons were "Action and Adventure". Probably wasn't the kind of vehicle to start a series of pictures, but thank goodness TWOK did that, but the series of movies were a mixed bag. Just imagine the possibilities if Harve Bennett didn't hire Leonard Nimoy to direct Star Trek III, and stuck with his guns in developing Saavik and the plot was Romulan related? The possibilities. Star Trek II has so much going for it, while Star Trek III napalmed the direction of epic ideas.