at the time VI was considered better than II? I think lot of fans considered VI so good at the time it bested II. I know I did. II was 10 years old and felt abit old hat (obviously it was considered a great movie and the best Trek film but it hadn't really got that 'classic' status it now has, I might be wrong though) whereas VI felt new, fresh, almost like a WOK for the 90s. a true continuation and conclusion to Treks II/III/IV (like a belated 4th movie) and totally made up for V. in fact V being like it was made VI feel even more of a treat! it was as if all the stars had aligned (Meyer, Nimoy. ILM) for this final one - the ultimate Star Trek movie (even crossing over with TNG and vice versa like Marvel is doing now) looking at the VI Cinefantastique issue from 1991 theres these Altman sidebar reviews of I-VI and I think it pretty much sums up the general mood at the time (out of **** stars) TMP ** ½ TWOK *** ½ ("Until VI this was widely considered the best of the movie lot..") TSFS ** ½ TVH *** TFF ** ½ TUC *** ¾ ("this impressive capper on a 25year voyage is the best of the film series....boasting the best SFX of the series and one of the greatest space battles ever committed to celluloid") (of course in hindsight VI isn't really in the same league as II is it?)
Heck, I remember that my local paper, The Seattle Times, thought that The Search for Spock was the best Trek movie to day, exceeding both Khan AND The Motion Picture.
I remember that Cinefantastique issue and still own it. I was about 15 years old when the movie came out and I don't think that many people considered VI the best, though most people liked it. My impression was that most people still considered II the best. I would say VI was in the top 3 in most lists at the time, but not the top one. I liked VI, but I've never considered it anywhere near the best. I always had a problem with the predictable "who-done-it" part of the story. I think we all knew Valeris would be the traitor even before they left Spacedock. I also think the movie has this weighed-down feel, like there was a certain vitality missing. And I also feel the movie has a "made for cable" look. I prefer Treks 1-4. And though 5 was a hot mess in some respects, I've finally warmed up to a lot of it because I love the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationships in this one. In 5, they look old, but they're physically active. In VI, it feels like everyone is stiiting around a lot. Star Trek VI is not a bad film, it's a good film, but its energy level is like the crew after too much Romulan Ale.
My recollection is similar to yours: that at the time VI was seen as a great return to form after the missteps of The Final Frontier, and was almost as good as Wrath of Khan. I don't remember people thinking it was better, mostly because there is a certain rough sloppiness around the story, where stuff doesn't quite fit together [*], but certainly that it was the best seen in a long while. [*] The example I was using to bludgeon people in conversation back in 1991: Chekov's dinner party line about believing all species were entitled to certain inalienable human rights. Perhaps that's a good point, in the conversation being held in some parallel universe that Chekov just popped in from because it hasn't anything to do with the scene that's on-screen. Presumably a little more polish would have smoothed out that (and many other) rough edges, but the movie's got lots of such rough edges.
All of us know that TWoK itself had a few points of "rough sloppiness" as well (for example, Khan's gratuitous "I shall avenge you" just after his lieutenant dies while looking up at him). I can forgive such things if the movie works as a whole, which I believe to be true of both TWoK and TUC.
You figured it out before the storyline even introduced the idea of there being a traitor on board? Impressive.
C'mon, don't be so literal. Though I did not read spoilers prior to the movie's release, there are trailers, magazine specials, articles and the like which talked about the plot. So when I found out there was a conspiracy and traitor, you HAD to know it was Valeris. I don't think they should've done a who-gone-it unless you were going to commit to it and make it Spock or Chekov or someone significant. The problem with that though is that it would've broken our heart and left us bitter. Still, I was sad that Cartwright was part of it. And that's mainly because we knew him from IV. It might've worked better with Saavik, as originally proposed. But I digress... I think Cinemafantastique was the only magazine that ranked VI as the best, (at least that I can recall).
Cartwright was probably given his role in the conspiracy to make up for using Valeris instead of Saavik. You really only need one good guy to go bad to shock the audience. I just wish they hadn't telegraphed Cartwright's role during the briefing, with that "Bring them to their knees, then we'll be in a position to dictate terms" crap.
It's true, at the time VI was hailed as perhaps the best ST movie, even over II. The years, I think, have changed that view. Just as TSFS suffers by comparison with the preceeding TWOK, I believe TUC is boosted by comparison with the preceeding TFF. TFF was so poorly received, if TUC was even pretty good, it'd seem like a major improvement by comparison. I, too, felt that TUC continued on as follow-up to TVH, essentially bypassing TFF. It seemed like the next film in the series with TFF the odd one out. But to this day, TWOK still maintains as the most highly regarded movie, while TUC seems to have suffered over the years. The failings that were perhaps overlooked are more noticeable. TUC is fine but hasn't stood the test of time as well as TWOK has.
I know Cinefantastique hailed it the best, but what other sources did? I don't remember other publications claiming that. And I was following Star Trek big time at the time. I think that's a good point. TFF was so badly received that TUC got a boost from that. I like TUC, but it has some flaws that keep it in the bottom 2 of the 6.
As noted recently on another thread, TUC was tied into current events in a way none of the other movies were, and presciently so - the final dissolution of the Soviet Union, while it may not have been the direct result of Chernobyl in '86, did occur during the first weeks of TUC's theatrical run in December '91 - so that very likely played a role in how the movie was received at the time (versus now).
i think a few of the films were hailed as 'the best' upon release- II obviously as it was just TMP, but III as you mentioned (although maybe not the majority), I know IV was considered the best one at the time, skip V, then VI as in OP. GEN was abit of a general disappointment not on Vs scale though, but I think i remember FC was hailed the greatest of all the movies from various sources. Obviously not for next 2, and with ST09 everyone loved it but by then II had become an untouchable classic like Empire Strikes Back so couldn't be THE best. And STID (in)famously spilt opinions. Best ST3 can hope is to be 2nd greatest movie (like SW7 being 3rd best SW)
I dont see why..... 6 basically marked THE END of the original and beautiful Star Trek!! (7 was a small extension)
Agree. Valerie's suffers from the "oh look, a new major character in the crew so something must happen to them" I also agree with your observation that it was good, but just never got its groove.
I'm a huge TWoK fan. It's my favorite film of the entire franchise, but in some ways 6 is better than 2. The story itself is much grander & more cohesive. TWoK's story seems a little piecemeal in comparison. It all comes together wonderfully, but it spends a lot of time with varied threads muddled about. It's the excellent character interrelations that make TWoK the greatest. Even the villain has personal history. What I recall about 6's reception is that people were enthusiastic again, after the poor critical reception of 5, & 4 being fun but not very substantial. I don't recall anyone specifically heralding it as the best of the franchise, but certainly one of the best, a perfect swan song
I have my issues with TWOK, but at no time could I ever think TUC was better than TWOK. And anyone who said otherwise back then I thought was clueless.
Re: at the time VI was considered better than II? This could only be true if there were no Star Wars movies. And no other Trek films, if it comes to that. TWOK, TSFS, hell, even NEM has more tension in its ship-to-ship confrontation.