How does the Kelvin Universe movies stack up with the various shows and movie series of Trek?

They're better than a third or so of the TOS/TNG films. Hard to compare them to the TV shows as they are a different medium. But they manage to capture the spirit of TOS better than the later series.

 

I could never really get into the Kelvin movies. I always found them too hyperactive. At times I seem to flip flop between thinking 'it's not too bad' then other times I can't help but to see the problems with it.

Just my opinion, but there was just too much disaster and nonstop action. To me, it came out as hyperactive. I noticed there was preoccupation with falling; in all 3 movies there is someone always falling off a cliff or something. A ship gets trashed in every movie.Spock seems to have emotional breakdowns in every movie, which defeats the purpose of his character to begin with.

Sometimes, the Kirk being made captain after only a few years in the academy looms in the background too.

But as far comparing to other movies--I tend to think they are better than the TNG movies, with the exception of some of First Contact and a little of Generations. The TOS movies seem too dated as well.

What I DO like about the Kelvin movies is that they're more willing to take risks. To make their universe look more contemporary and relatable to us, even if they play Beastie Boys music, which I think works better than hearing classical music all the time lol .

 

Better than the vast majority of Trek after the early 80's basically.

 

Better than NEM and TFF in production values, that's for sure. I would rank them somewhere in the middle as 'Trek films (TMP IS the best of the 'Trek films, IMO). Also, I separate films from television precisely because the television medium is a different "animal" altogether.

 

I'm surprised so many people feel that you can't compare the movie's to the series. If it was a single movie I would understand but once you become a trilogy and also when your talking about stuff that is all part of the same franchise I would think it would be okay, just as long as you know that each series and each movie series works just a little different.

Jason

 

Quadrant means fourth or quarter. The galaxy is divided into 4 quadrants. A quadrant is one-fourth of the entire galaxy. It sounded dramatic when the Enterprise was the only ship in the quadrant. The writer either didn't know what a quadrant was or didn't care because it sounded cool. To justify the quote, later Trek or Fandom (maybe it's official) presented the idea that the division between the Alpha and Beta quadrants ran straight though the Sol system. Thus, the Enterprise could be the only ship in the (Beta) quadrant because most of the Federation is in the Alpha quadrant. Yet, other maps depict the Federation as a literal circle of influence with Sol being in the center. This puts the Klingons and Romulans technically in the Beta Quadrant yet they are always discussed and interacting with the Alpha Quadrant species or nations. Since the quadrants and divisions are purely arbitrary and the result of mapmaker whims, it is illogical for the Federation to designate the quadrant division line intersects the Sol system.

Just like Han Solo's line in Ep 4 about the Falcon making the Kessel Run 12 parsecs. Since a parsec is unit of distance and not a unit of time, fandom (maybe it's official) has created convoluted ideas on how to make the sentence work logically. "Oh, it's the idea of making the Run in the shortest distance!" Clearly this was not the original intent of the line and the context clearly shows Solo was talking speed as his very next line was "she's fast enough for you, old man."

But we're fans. We are not here to be rational. LOL

 

Most of TV Trek is episodic and limited by the monetary constrains of the medium. There's also more "room" on TV. They have anywhere from 13 to 24+ hours a year to develop characters, stories and universes.

 

In short here's how I would stack them:

First Contact & Into Darkness > all other star trek movies

 

I find them to be much better than Voyager, Enterprise and large chunks of DS9 and TNG. They also beat out some of the weaker original films. But they can't supplant TOS or the best moments of the original 6.

 

I put the Kevlinverse movies below everything.

Sideline: I once wrote a fan fiction where the crew of my fictional starship listened to heavy metal on the bridge. I forget why. But I guess my point is I'm very concerned that the fan fiction stylings of my 12 year old self with a bowl cut made it to film :/

 

It was a fun bit. Don't see why it should be problematic.

 

I respect that opinion. In my opinion it was idiotic.

 

I like the Kelvinverse just fine, but I don't have the same emotional connection to those 3 films, as I do to the rest of Star Trek.
I grew up watching TOS and TAS reruns, I was 6 when TMP was released and saw it in the theater as well as every Star Trek film since, and I was 14 when TNG debuted. Those are the versions I have the most connection to. When DS9 and Voy debuted, I was in my very early 20s, and I have a pretty strong emotional connection to them, as well, but not like TOS and TNG. ENT came out when I was in my late 20s, so I was less impressionable then, and therefore less of an emotional connection.

By the time Star Trek 2009 came out, I was in my mid 30s. I liked it and the sequels, but not at an age where I was attached to it. Good movies, and I like how Abrams and Lynn revived the franchise, and did a soft reboot while keeping what came before intact as canon. But they don't make me feel the way TOS and TNG do.

 

I have a few issues with each film, but overall, I enjoy them. I do miss philosophical, cerebral Star Trek... but if it's between the Kelvin Timeline or nothing at all, by all means, I'll take 12 Kelvin Timeline films.

 

Pretty much so, yeah!

 

If I do have any problems with the films is that they are less sci-fi than they ought to be, which is why TMP (and to a lesser degree TVH) is the purest of what it means to be sci-do in the classic sense. All the other films tend to be direct allegories to something else, and half of them were about a mad man bent on revenge (my only problem with the Kelvin-verse). And, as someone already have stated, television allows for more time to explore sci-fi themes, thanks to pacing and their episodic nature. But in the end, I can appreciate both sides for trying to entertain while enlightening the audience (though the television side does the latter better).

 

"Classic" Science Fiction has never been Star Trek's strong suite. TMP is a bit of an outlier from most of Trek in this regard. It lacks the humanity that Trek does best The Star Trek '09 with it's use the Many Worlds Interpretation as plot driver pushes it closer to "classic SF" than most other Trek installments. ITD and Beyond are closer to standard Trek.

 

The Kelvin Universe is pretty good. I enjoy it. I think these are among the most "rewatchable" films in the franchise for me, especially the first and third. (I like STID. It happens, and not just to KingDaniel!)

I'm not sure I can rank the Kelvinverse above any of the five TV shows; there's just so much there. Maybe TOS. I'm not the biggest TOS mark 'til the film portion. Probably none of the rest. But that's no damning proclamation. I adore Trek; it's kinda why I'm here.