How would that make it a better film? It would still be as hokey as it is
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
How would that make it a better film? It would still be as hokey as it is
The issue isn't just "getting worse" it's what can account for the kind of sudden blank slate reset that happens to create Earth as depicted in Star Trek. An apocalyptic war is about all I can think of for that. Changes due to environmental and resource issues are going to be much more gradual.
You never heard of the rule that every second Trek movie is good? TFF switches places with either TVH or TUC and its looked at more positively.
It's also been theorized that Galaxy Quest threw this rule off, which is why NEM and Into Darkness were bad, while ST'09 and BEY are considered good.
Or perhaps the rule is slightly more complicated than we thought, for example 'all movies of which the sum of its digits is even is good'.
In that case, the sequence 2,4,6,8,11,13 would still hold.
The rule was always bs.
Search for Spock isn't terrible, TWOK isn't the greatest thing ever. TUC is one of my personal favorites, but it's got plenty of deserved criticism coming to it.
Search for Spock isn't terrible, TWOK isn't the greatest thing ever. TUC is one of my personal favorites, but it's got plenty of deserved criticism coming to it.
I wouldn't go that far.
I mean, are there far worse movies in existence? Absolutely. No Star Trek movie will ever be as bad as the dregs of direct to vhs/sci-fi channel original filmmaking.
But by the reasonable/relevant standards of actual mainstream movies, Nemesis is completely and utterly dire in every possible way. And Into Darkness may look pretty with its big budget action, but it has a script with all the intelligence of Spock's Brain and all the originality of Shades of Grey.
I mean, are there far worse movies in existence? Absolutely. No Star Trek movie will ever be as bad as the dregs of direct to vhs/sci-fi channel original filmmaking.
But by the reasonable/relevant standards of actual mainstream movies, Nemesis is completely and utterly dire in every possible way. And Into Darkness may look pretty with its big budget action, but it has a script with all the intelligence of Spock's Brain and all the originality of Shades of Grey.
Its not a rule. Star Trek: The Motion Picture "earned" that distinction by being creatively buried by TWOK saving the then-fledgling ST film series by restoring what is perceived as the natural progression from the tone, characterization and cretive strengths of TOS. TWOK's follow-up--The Search for Spock--did not fail commercially or creatively; it was a dramatic showcase for several characters, had many of the franchise's most memorable and heartfelt storylines / elements (Kirk's love for his friends / seeing the power of faith through Spock's revival with his Katra / Kirk's tragically short-lived relationship with his son / the mind meld sequence / destruction of the 1701, etc.). It was the logical conclusion to threads left by TWOK, continuing the TOS feel in the movie era.
Where The Final Frontier is concerned, I will always say its not a bad film at all. Shatner knew how to direct a Star Trek film, and with its focus on the bond between the Big Three (and exploring their personal pain), TFF gave ST fans some of the best character development seen in the movies. One really understood just how bonded the Big Three were to each other, no matter the misery they've suffered. In fact, the personal pain Spock and McCoy endured in earlier years explains the how and why their connection (despite the head-butting) or need to make a new "family" bond had occurred throughout TOS (and in TWOK / TSFS); they have blood relations, but only they truly understood each other.
That said, there are certain fans with personal agendas which fueled their ranting against the film, which are not supportable positions, such as "S-Shatner b-b-brought religion into Star Trek!!!!" as if TOS had presented an atheistic universe. If anyone ever watched TOS--a production when Roddenberry actually had the most control during his years associated with the franchise--they would see religion and faith existed in-universe, with characters expressing belief, quoted Biblical scripture and with Kirk, he had a habit of breaking false gods (see: Gary Mitchell and Apollo), letting them know they were not the real deal. This was the work and views of the various creatives, not some nonexistent mandate from NBC, TOS' sponsors, or any other organization.
Some dislike TSFS for many of the same reasons, as they despised the entire creation and use of Vulcan spirituality / practices and the fact Spock's Katra was not the equivalent of a program or transporter pattern, but his soul by another name, and the only way he could return to the physical world. Without it, that body was simply an unconscious slab of meat. Over the decades, i've witnessed the fits of rage about this sub-topic (especially into the Berman era), and despite ST--as a franchise--establishing faith and religion among its in-universe history, some target movie entries 3 and 5--the so-named odd-numbered entries as "bad", usually for that reason.
Regarding the TNG movies...well, there's a Star Trek-emblazoned trash can where they will always have a permanent home.
I've always liked TMP. To take it one step further:
If you haven't seen TMP in a theater, then you haven't seen it. The small screen doesn't do it justice. I saw the movie in a theater at a 40th Anniversary screening in 2019, and I was blown away. It was like watching a whole other movie.
Visually, this is the best Star Trek movie, and the most intricate. Practical Effects will always be better than CGI, IMO, and TMP had Practical at Star Trek's best.
TSFS is currently the only Star Trek movie I haven't seen in a theater. I had the opportunity to watch TWOK and TVH at special screenings in the 2010s, and saw all the Trek movies from TFF on in the theater during their original theatrical runs, even though I wasn't a fan yet when I was taken to see TFF, and wasn't converted by it.
If you haven't seen TMP in a theater, then you haven't seen it. The small screen doesn't do it justice. I saw the movie in a theater at a 40th Anniversary screening in 2019, and I was blown away. It was like watching a whole other movie.
Visually, this is the best Star Trek movie, and the most intricate. Practical Effects will always be better than CGI, IMO, and TMP had Practical at Star Trek's best.
TSFS is currently the only Star Trek movie I haven't seen in a theater. I had the opportunity to watch TWOK and TVH at special screenings in the 2010s, and saw all the Trek movies from TFF on in the theater during their original theatrical runs, even though I wasn't a fan yet when I was taken to see TFF, and wasn't converted by it.
Last edited:
TMP is the most sci-fi of any Trek film and it shows. It's a movie about philosophical ideas and doesn't shy away from exploring them, to the point of Spock weeping tears over V'Ger's anguished quest to find and join with its Creator. TMP isn't everyone's cup of Earl Grey but it works. It's not perfect by any measurement but it works. And since it works I enjoy it. A lot.
That's okay. You just need to join with the Creator then it'll all be okay. 
I have a certain amount of appreciation for TMP. It wanted to convey the grandness of their adventure in space, even if it fell flat on its face in some respects. WoK is a good and tense action movie. Never cared much for SfS. TVH is overrated in my view. It has its fun moments with them visiting 1986 earth, but I find the core premise too silly and 'message-y' to really enjoy it. Save for a few scenes, I don't think too much of TFF, and I really like TUC.
Generations and FC are both fine in my book (albeit in different ways), INS and NEM less so.
Generations and FC are both fine in my book (albeit in different ways), INS and NEM less so.
Yes the f/x were amateurish at times, but I love the story (“search for God, find the devil”), Kirk’s “my pain” speech, the friendships that had formed. In many ways, it’s quite lovely. JMHO
Kirks speech about pain is good but the rest is too poorly done for me to say it's lovely.
If it came out in modern times a bunch of Trek "fans" would bash it mercilessly
I understand different people appreciate different aspects of the franchise.
IDIC and all that…
Sure, ofc. I'm just over every fandom being full of genwunners
Similar threads
- Locked
