most disappointing Trek movie?

[K1productions]

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.

I can't say I agree with anything you said here.
Being "preachy" was never TOS' problem. The problems were when it was poorly executed or driven by an asinine plot, further hampered by budgets requiring heavy corner cutting, which were the biggest problems with season 3. TMP's failing was that it was built off a script intended for television, not film. The two don't exactly jive oftentimes. Especially when you have a story intended to introduce new characters that would persist through a series,... but now you're making a film that uses them as a one-off, so what would have worked as their introduction only serves to overshadow your actual main cast. Decker and Ilia's scenes would have been seen as truly touching, if we followed a series that showed the progression of their characters afterward.
"Action and Adventure" weren't the biggest selling points of Star Trek, and many of its most well-regarded episodes were instead about drama or even comedy. Case in point, "City on the Edge of Forever" and "Trouble with Tribbles"

Wrath of Khan basically served to make Star Trek accessible to the general audience. A story easier for the layman to understand, with plenty of backstory provided to fill in the gaps, and a cool space battle to give the spectacle-hungry something to enjoy. Sure, it worked great as a film... but you mention "epic ideas"... what epic idea was in Wrath of Khan aside from Genesis? And in that film, it was used as little more than a bargaining chip.

Wrath of Khan focused almost exclusively on Kirk and Spock, with some Saavik thrown in there. Everyone else (certainly the original TOS cast) was relegated to background roles. Even McCoy was almost an afterthought. You say Wrath of Khan had so much going for it,... in that I agree... up until the point where Khan was obsessed with revenge. Then virtually everything compelling, threatening, and menacing about his character was stripped away. He was no longer manipulative with his charm and intellect, he was a psychotic madman who got off a lucky shot... and then was thwarted at almost every turn because he didn't think ahead. You say "imagine the possibilities", well I say imagine if we got the same Khan from Space Seed. Upon learning of Genesis, he was able to manipulate his way onto the Reliant, rather than capture its Captain with brain bugs. If he actually had a plan with what to do with it, and build an empire for himself. Hell, imagine if they didn't piss away Seti Alpha V, as the whole point of the episode "Space Seed" was to see (as Spock would say) what crop had sprung from the seed you planted today. If we actually saw Khan taming a world, as Kirk suggested. The whole need for revenge was pointless because Kirk gave Khan everything he ever wanted. Quoting Khan himself here - "A world to win, an empire to build"

moving on to Search for Spock... how exactly did it napalm anything? If anything, it further built upon the Vulcans in the same way "Amok Time" (TOS) did. And you know the two Leonards (L. Nimoy and Mark L.) had an absolute blast being able to delve deeper into the Vulcan mythology and culture.
On top of that, you have a story about the bonds of friendship, and a film with an ensemble who all get to participate in the story, rather than just sit at a console saying "course laid in Captain" or "hailing frequencies open" or "I'm givin' her all she's got"
Search for Spock doesn't get nearly the credit it deserves. This stood out even more for me when I showed someone Wrath, Search, and Voyage for the first time. Wrath was almost boring because of how much it dragged for the first half, while she got far more invested in Search and Voyage because she was able to invest in the characters. Particularly McCoy and Scotty (talk about someone totally wasted in Wrath, even with the deleted scene subplot about his cadet nephew)

A point I've made before - This pedestal we put Wrath of Khan on is one of the primary reasons why Hollywood continuously gives us "bad guys" and revenge in every single Trek film from Undiscovered Country onwards. If only we put Voyage Home on that pedestal, maybe we'd get more fun adventure than pew-pew

 

[fireproof78]

A point I've made before - This pedestal we put Wrath of Khan on is one of the primary reasons why Hollywood continuously gives us "bad guys" and revenge in every single Trek film from Undiscovered Country onwards. If only we put Voyage Home on that pedestal, maybe we'd get more fun adventure than pew-pew

We get what we say we like. Can't fault the studios for doing exactly that.

 

[Vger23]

I can't say I agree with anything you said here.
Being "preachy" was never TOS' problem. The problems were when it was poorly executed or driven by an asinine plot, further hampered by budgets requiring heavy corner cutting, which were the biggest problems with season 3. TMP's failing was that it was built off a script intended for television, not film. The two don't exactly jive oftentimes. Especially when you have a story intended to introduce new characters that would persist through a series,... but now you're making a film that uses them as a one-off, so what would have worked as their introduction only serves to overshadow your actual main cast. Decker and Ilia's scenes would have been seen as truly touching, if we followed a series that showed the progression of their characters afterward.
"Action and Adventure" weren't the biggest selling points of Star Trek, and many of its most well-regarded episodes were instead about drama or even comedy. Case in point, "City on the Edge of Forever" and "Trouble with Tribbles"

Wrath of Khan basically served to make Star Trek accessible to the general audience. A story easier for the layman to understand, with plenty of backstory provided to fill in the gaps, and a cool space battle to give the spectacle-hungry something to enjoy. Sure, it worked great as a film... but you mention "epic ideas"... what epic idea was in Wrath of Khan aside from Genesis? And in that film, it was used as little more than a bargaining chip.

Wrath of Khan focused almost exclusively on Kirk and Spock, with some Saavik thrown in there. Everyone else (certainly the original TOS cast) was relegated to background roles. Even McCoy was almost an afterthought. You say Wrath of Khan had so much going for it,... in that I agree... up until the point where Khan was obsessed with revenge. Then virtually everything compelling, threatening, and menacing about his character was stripped away. He was no longer manipulative with his charm and intellect, he was a psychotic madman who got off a lucky shot... and then was thwarted at almost every turn because he didn't think ahead. You say "imagine the possibilities", well I say imagine if we got the same Khan from Space Seed. Upon learning of Genesis, he was able to manipulate his way onto the Reliant, rather than capture its Captain with brain bugs. If he actually had a plan with what to do with it, and build an empire for himself. Hell, imagine if they didn't piss away Seti Alpha V, as the whole point of the episode "Space Seed" was to see (as Spock would say) what crop had sprung from the seed you planted today. If we actually saw Khan taming a world, as Kirk suggested. The whole need for revenge was pointless because Kirk gave Khan everything he ever wanted. Quoting Khan himself here - "A world to win, an empire to build"

moving on to Search for Spock... how exactly did it napalm anything? If anything, it further built upon the Vulcans in the same way "Amok Time" (TOS) did. And you know the two Leonards (L. Nimoy and Mark L.) had an absolute blast being able to delve deeper into the Vulcan mythology and culture.
On top of that, you have a story about the bonds of friendship, and a film with an ensemble who all get to participate in the story, rather than just sit at a console saying "course laid in Captain" or "hailing frequencies open" or "I'm givin' her all she's got"
Search for Spock doesn't get nearly the credit it deserves. This stood out even more for me when I showed someone Wrath, Search, and Voyage for the first time. Wrath was almost boring because of how much it dragged for the first half, while she got far more invested in Search and Voyage because she was able to invest in the characters. Particularly McCoy and Scotty (talk about someone totally wasted in Wrath, even with the deleted scene subplot about his cadet nephew)

A point I've made before - This pedestal we put Wrath of Khan on is one of the primary reasons why Hollywood continuously gives us "bad guys" and revenge in every single Trek film from Undiscovered Country onwards. If only we put Voyage Home on that pedestal, maybe we'd get more fun adventure than pew-pew

I agree with a lot of what you say here. I would like to point out that the studios and producers actually DO put TVH on as high of a pedestal as TWOK, which is why you see as much of a push to (unsuccessfully) place silly humor into the films as you see villains bent on revenge.

The worst of all the films, INS, tried to to both at once.

TWOK and TVH have been the templates the studios have been chasing for decades now, not realizing that those films only worked due to the timing they were made and the context within the broader story that they fit into.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree with a lot of what you say here. I would like to point out that the studios and producers actually DO put TVH on as high of a pedestal as TWOK, which is why you see as much of a push to (unsuccessfully) place silly humor into the films as you see villains bent on revenge.

The worst of all the films, INS, tried to to both at once.

TWOK and TVH have been the templates the studios have been chasing for decades now, not realizing that those films only worked due to the timing they were made and the context within the broader story that they fit into.

That is a lesson that studios are reluctant to learn, largely due to being concerned that doing something different will lose them money.

 

[plynch]

Or not make craptons. Being moderately profitable is not enough.

 

[fireproof78]

Or not make craptons. Being moderately profitable is not enough.

Since they don't produce nearly the same number of films as before this is understandable. Margins are not nearly what they use to be.

 

[STEPhon IT]

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.

If you had to choose one of those movies, which one would be the most disappointing?

 

[DarKush]

If you had to choose one of those movies, which one would be the most disappointing?

So tough...

But I'm going to go with Into Darkness. The funny thing is I think Into Darkness is a better made movie and that Khan is more fully realized than Shinzon, however, I just didn't buy Cumberbatch's take on the character as legit. And then when they started taking stuff from TWOK almost verbatim it just felt unearned. Further, I felt that Into Darkness regressed Kirk's character while making too many of the TOS characters bratty. Carol Marcus was also wasted. I did enjoy Peter Weller quite a bit, I also liked the Klingon makeup (much better than on DISCO), and I thought the Vengeance was a menacing looking ship. I didn't like the Klingon Bird-of-Preys, however their aesthetic was more traditional than what DISCO did Season 1 with their Klingon vessels.

With Nemesis I felt Picard was too out of character, Shinzon's ultimate goal didn't work for me, and B4 was just sort of there (it rankled that no one mentioned Lore at all), and the film was missing the kind of little character beats and moments that I enjoy in Trek movies. I remember after seeing the film the first time how old and tired the TNG cast looked. I did enjoy the Battle of Bassen Rift, I loved the new warbirds, and I thought the Remans weren't bad villains (that said I wished we had gotten a movie with the Romulans as the sole villains in just one of the first ten films; I was glad that J.J. Abrams saw their value).

 

[fireproof78]

I just didn't buy Cumberbatch's take on the character as legit.

Curiosity strikes, though you did not answer me. What would make the character legit? Both in this instance and then in general?

 

[DarKush]

Curiosity strikes, though you did not answer me. What would make the character legit? Both in this instance and then in general?

I didn't answer you? Regarding what? As for Cumberbatch I thought his take on the character was too glacial. It was a good performance but not one that said Khan Noonien Singh as Ricardo Montalban had brought him to life. Certainly too different actors, two different realities, and the pressures and challenges presented to both characters might produce different reactions or behaviors.

But beyond all that, Cumberbatch was cold whereas Montalban's Khan had passion and vitality. TOS Khan had charisma and a magnetism that Cumberbatch's Khan did not. He was a blunt instrument, more than eager to fulfill the role Marcus had assigned him. TOS Khan could be a charmer, a conversationalist (to a point), and while tyrannical he was not genocidal. Kelvin Khan was turned more into a genocidal extremist, not that different than Michael Shannon's Zod in Man of Steel. It wasn't circumstances that made him like that, from what I recall, they retconned his history a bit to always make him like that, whereas on TOS he was described as the best of the Eugenic Wars tyrants.

I was so hoping that they weren't using Khan, and I held on to that foolish hope right up until Cumberbatch mouthed the words. Gary Mitchell, Joaquin, just anyone else.

I wonder what Javier Bardem would've done with the role. While different than Montalban I think he might have been able to summon some of that passion and fire, perhaps being a cross between the TOS and Kelvin Khans.

 

[fireproof78]

I didn't answer you? Regarding what? As for Cumberbatch I thought his take on the character was too glacial. It was a good performance but not one that said Khan Noonien Singh as Ricardo Montalban had brought him to life. Certainly too different actors, two different realities, and the pressures and challenges presented to both characters might produce different reactions or behaviors.

But beyond all that, Cumberbatch was cold whereas Montalban's Khan had passion and vitality. TOS Khan had charisma and a magnetism that Cumberbatch's Khan did not. He was a blunt instrument, more than eager to fulfill the role Marcus had assigned him. TOS Khan could be a charmer, a conversationalist (to a point), and while tyrannical he was not genocidal. Kelvin Khan was turned more into a genocidal extremist, not that different than Michael Shannon's Zod in Man of Steel. It wasn't circumstances that made him like that, from what I recall, they retconned his history a bit to always make him like that, whereas on TOS he was described as the best of the Eugenic Wars tyrants.

I was so hoping that they weren't using Khan, and I held on to that foolish hope right up until Cumberbatch mouthed the words. Gary Mitchell, Joaquin, just anyone else.

I wonder what Javier Bardem would've done with the role. While different than Montalban I think he might have been able to summon some of that passion and fire, perhaps being a cross between the TOS and Kelvin Khans.

Apologies. I means you didn't ask me, as the original poster. But it was a curiosity of mine.

Regardless, I see your point. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I don't agree but that's OK.

 

[STEPhon IT]

So tough...

But I'm going to go with Into Darkness. The funny thing is I think Into Darkness is a better made movie and that Khan is more fully realized than Shinzon, however, I just didn't buy Cumberbatch's take on the character as legit. And then when they started taking stuff from TWOK almost verbatim it just felt unearned. Further, I felt that Into Darkness regressed Kirk's character while making too many of the TOS characters bratty. Carol Marcus was also wasted. I did enjoy Peter Weller quite a bit, I also liked the Klingon makeup (much better than on DISCO), and I thought the Vengeance was a menacing looking ship. I didn't like the Klingon Bird-of-Preys, however their aesthetic was more traditional than what DISCO did Season 1 with their Klingon vessels.

With Nemesis I felt Picard was too out of character, Shinzon's ultimate goal didn't work for me, and B4 was just sort of there (it rankled that no one mentioned Lore at all), and the film was missing the kind of little character beats and moments that I enjoy in Trek movies. I remember after seeing the film the first time how old and tired the TNG cast looked. I did enjoy the Battle of Bassen Rift, I loved the new warbirds, and I thought the Remans weren't bad villains (that said I wished we had gotten a movie with the Romulans as the sole villains in just one of the first ten films; I was glad that J.J. Abrams saw their value).

That's the suck thing about Picard's character through the movies, and I agree I didn't buy or liked Shinzon's motivation. I would've killed to see Shinzon reveal something Picard kept secret for a long time, something which would reflect the story. The motivations for any of these characters were hollow and just didn't jibe with me. I can't really say there were opportunities for that Frankenstein of a movie because it's solely based on plagiarizing plots and motivations from TWOK and TUC. TNG franchise deserved better than that. So unfair.

 

[K1productions]

I agree with a lot of what you say here. I would like to point out that the studios and producers actually DO put TVH on as high of a pedestal as TWOK, which is why you see as much of a push to (unsuccessfully) place silly humor into the films as you see villains bent on revenge.

The worst of all the films, INS, tried to to both at once.

TWOK and TVH have been the templates the studios have been chasing for decades now, not realizing that those films only worked due to the timing they were made and the context within the broader story that they fit into.

The studios might, but the fanbase at large does not. At least, the more vocal side. It is skewed far more toward the Khan side of things, but never fully delved into as to why. And many who do preach Khan as the best Trek film don't often give good answers either. Certainly not anything that wouldn't feed into Hollywood's pre-established conclusions.

There needs to be more focus beyond the superficial. Finding exactly why certain things worked better, not just what they are.

 

[Vger23]

The studios might, but the fanbase at large does not. At least, the more vocal side. It is skewed far more toward the Khan side of things, but never fully delved into as to why. And many who do preach Khan as the best Trek film don't often give good answers either. Certainly not anything that wouldn't feed into Hollywood's pre-established conclusions.

There needs to be more focus beyond the superficial. Finding exactly why certain things worked better, not just what they are.

I find TWOK to be an infinitely better film than TVH.

I appreciate the drama, witty character interplay, slow-burn plot and mounting tension, themes of aging and mortality, violent and dark tone (which was a shocking but welcome departure at the time), space battles, and musical score. I also think it’s Shatner’s best performance as Kirk in the entire franchise (although TSFS is arguably as good) and Montalban chews scenery wonderfully as a megalomaniac but tragic villain.

I love the inclusion of the supporting cast and characters as well. David and Carol’s presence add tension to the proceedings and depth to Kirk’s character. Saavik was a fascinating young addition to the cast, having great chemistry with both Kirk and Spock.

I also appreciate the Genesis Device as both a fascinating science fiction concept as well as a classic Trek vehicle for debates about the moral and ethical implications of dangerous technology.

It did well and fans love it because it’s a great movie that was made perfectly at a perfect time for it.

The issue is not that we need more movies like TVH, or less movies like TWOK. The issue is that the studios don't understand that a film like TWOK is more than the sum of its parts. It’s not just about a villain or a main character dying. It’s not just about space battles. It’s all those things and much, much more (inclusive of being the right movie at the right time within the continuum of the franchise) and trying to duplicate its success by reverting to some blueprint is a fool’s errand.

I think a lot of success of the TOS films (TMP-TUC) was built off the serialized nature and continuity they established, particularly with the Genesis Trilogy. It was also the same classic cast and characters, but typically in stories that were materially and totally different from both the series and the previous films (death of main character, stealing the Enterprise for an unsanctioned mission and destroying it, spending a whole movie in a captured Klingon ship, making peace with the Klingons, etc). So, each film was its own special and unique little slice of Trek lore. The TNG films never truly recaptured that, even though they tried to duplicate those elements.

Bottom line is that I’m a huge fan of the Trek movies....but I’m now starting to believe what others have been saying for many years- which is that overall Trek is a better television property than a movie franchise. I think the TOS films had a special magic that can never ever be duplicated, because that time in history has past and those magical characters and the actors who portrayed them are no longer available for various reasons.

 

[Smellmet]

I wonder what Javier Bardem would've done with the role. While different than Montalban I think he might have been able to summon some of that passion and fire, perhaps being a cross between the TOS and Kelvin Khans.

Eight years later and he still would be my choice to play the character. He would have been perfect.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Eight years later and he still would be my choice to play the character. He would have been perfect.

i think Badhem was most likely Abrams and Co's 1st choice then they couldnt get him bc he was playing a similar villain in Bond so went with BDT then that fell thru which led them to throw out the rule book and order up some Cumberbatch (due to his cusp of A list popularity)

 

[Khan 2.0]

I find TWOK to be an infinitely better film than TVH.

I appreciate the drama, witty character interplay, slow-burn plot and mounting tension, themes of aging and mortality, violent and dark tone (which was a shocking but welcome departure at the time), space battles, and musical score. I also think it’s Shatner’s best performance as Kirk in the entire franchise (although TSFS is arguably as good) and Montalban chews scenery wonderfully as a megalomaniac but tragic villain.

I love the inclusion of the supporting cast and characters as well. David and Carol’s presence add tension to the proceedings and depth to Kirk’s character. Saavik was a fascinating young addition to the cast, having great chemistry with both Kirk and Spock.

I also appreciate the Genesis Device as both a fascinating science fiction concept as well as a classic Trek vehicle for debates about the moral and ethical implications of dangerous technology.

It did well and fans love it because it’s a great movie that was made perfectly at a perfect time for it.

The issue is not that we need more movies like TVH, or less movies like TWOK. The issue is that the studios don't understand that a film like TWOK is more than the sum of its parts. It’s not just about a villain or a main character dying. It’s not just about space battles. It’s all those things and much, much more (inclusive of being the right movie at the right time within the continuum of the franchise) and trying to duplicate its success by reverting to some blueprint is a fool’s errand.

I think a lot of success of the TOS films (TMP-TUC) was built off the serialized nature and continuity they established, particularly with the Genesis Trilogy. It was also the same classic cast and characters, but typically in stories that were materially and totally different from both the series and the previous films (death of main character, stealing the Enterprise for an unsanctioned mission and destroying it, spending a whole movie in a captured Klingon ship, making peace with the Klingons, etc). So, each film was its own special and unique little slice of Trek lore. The TNG films never truly recaptured that, even though they tried to duplicate those elements.

Bottom line is that I’m a huge fan of the Trek movies....but I’m now starting to believe what others have been saying for many years- which is that overall Trek is a better television property than a movie franchise. I think the TOS films had a special magic that can never ever be duplicated, because that time in history has past and those magical characters and the actors who portrayed them are no longer available for various reasons.

yeah it hardly needs to be said (although maybe it does now its so long ago) that the 6 original cast films esp TWOK are the absolute bench mark for the entire movie franchise (like the StarWars OT). The TNG and Kelvin films are really just thinly veiled remakes/mash ups of those 6 films (or maybe 5 or 4 of them)

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

TFF, 'cause it is a ripoff of TOS:The Way to Eden and TAS:Beyond the Farthest Star, and some others. On the other hand, TWOK was probably the highest quality, but my favorite TOS film is a TSFS/TVH tie. Kirks wife and son caught me by surprise, they should have gone into more detail about it.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Eight years later and he still would be my choice to play the character. He would have been perfect.

Casting Bardem would be disrespecting the art and the character and could lean towards mocking the great Montalban. An actor should always go forward with what they feel needs to be interpreted and work well for them. Aping Montalban or doing anything which would remind me of the actor would only wish that actor was still doing the role.

I enjoy a contrast where an actor can explore something I never saw in the character like Cumberbach; Tarantino in one of those podcast ranted about it and had your choice as well but I would only accept his part if it's Bardem's own interpretation and not something I'd already seen. I also don't want to see something he'd done before such as "No Country for Old Men", or that lousy OO7 movie "SkyFall",where Bond fails throughout the entire movie, but take chances and distance his performance light years away from Montalban. BTW, whatever Bardem would and could do, fans will hate it because Montalban's shadow has gotten larger by the milli-second.

 

[Smellmet]

Casting Bardem would be disrespecting the art and the character and could lean towards mocking the great Montalban. An actor should always go forward with what they feel needs to be interpreted and work well for them. Aping Montalban or doing anything which would remind me of the actor would only wish that actor was still doing the role.

I enjoy a contrast where an actor can explore something I never saw in the character like Cumberbach; Tarantino in one of those podcast ranted about it and had your choice as well but I would only accept his part if it's Bardem's own interpretation and not something I'd already seen. I also don't want to see something he'd done before such as "No Country for Old Men", or that lousy OO7 movie "SkyFall",where Bond fails throughout the entire movie, but take chances and distance his performance light years away from Montalban. BTW, whatever Bardem would and could do, fans will hate it because Montalban's shadow has gotten larger by the milli-second.

I'm not suggesting he impersonate montalban, but his overall look, build and demeanour just fits better for me, in the same way that quinto does with spock and urban does with McCoy. They weren't impersonating (though the aforementioned two actors come closest to) but they do enough to make the audience buy into the whole thing, which we have to remember, wasn't a clean slate reboot with prime spock appearing etc - there had to be a decent stab at recreating these characters, or for me that would disrespect the previous canon and spoil the illusion they went to great lengths to recreate.

The thing is, it's not like I didn't enjoy BCs performance, I actually did quite a lot. He was cold, menacing and ruthless and had some good scenes - I loved the initial brig scene, the 'cold corpses' bit among most of them but I just didn't feel like I was watching khan in the same way I did with the rest of the excellent cast. For me, bardem would have potentially fixed this.

Luckily I enjoyed the hell out of the movie and it gets a pass from me as a result.